• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What do Messianics consider themselves a sect of?

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I do want to add something in considering the imperative.... I am not saying that the GC is optional... is it something we ARE to do which I think addresses your concern. It is something, an action, we ALL will take part in, my point is it isn't as much about knocking on doors of those who asked for no information and forcing Chick Tracts on them... rather, it is about living a life reflective of the one we serve while ALWAYS ready to give an answer.
 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟34,673.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is still a Coney Island? :) I grew up on Long Beach Island in South Jersey... been up your way a few hundred times. I get your point, but... the connection to the imperative, as I understand it, adds weight but doesn't turn it into command form, the "teach" is in command form the "going" is still passive.

I have gone back and forth with this often for a while and am fairly settled where I am now based in part about what we are discussing but just as much if not more once heresy is understood and factored in. I won't manipulate or otherwise try to force anyone into anything, either they desire to learn, or they don't. :)

Enjoy your day and the rides! :thumbsup:
I disagree with your position. "Passive" here means really nothing, since it's a deponent verb. Either way, I'm enjoying having your voice on the forum. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I disagree with your position. "Passive" here means really nothing, since it's a deponent verb. Either way, I'm enjoying having your voice on the forum. :)

I appreciate your words. I sent an email last night to my friend who writes the curriculum. His answer doesn't support me, it doesn't really support you, it seems to come down somewhere in the middle. :) So, for whatever it is worth, I thought I would share it here as my last comment since I already said Greek isn't my strength and we'll just move on to the next topic. :)


>>This question is a funny one and lots of people write enough "rope" to hang themselves on it. Technically, grammatically, the participle is not a command, BUT.... :)

Let me explain... There is, if you like, an *assumption* that you will be going. The argument comes from the difficulty of translating this into English. We might translate it as "as you are going", or "when you go", or quite rightly as many translations do "go" which looks rather like an imperative in English. I don't like this last translation because it puts too much force in the word, making it into a literal command. It is a concept that many "English-only" speakers find difficult because it is difficult to express in English. It is not a command like that, and that's why I don't like that translation - nevertheless it is assumed that you WILL go.

The problem comes when people put into that assumed going their preconceptions that are not in the text. If they think "going" means packing up your family and living in some village in the third world then they are putting a meaning on the text that was not intended. In one sense you CAN argue that there is a command to go - after all the Messiah did say that his disciples would be witnesses "in Jerusalem, Judea, and to the ends of the earth" - it's hard to get around that and argue that's not a command to go - it's just not directly in Matthew 28.

In my opinion, there's nothing much "passive" about the great commission. Every disciple is commanded to be a witness and to teach and baptise wherever s/he goes. "Making disciples" IS something all disciples are commanded to be involved in. However I don't think there is a command for every disciple to pack up and move their families to some other town or country.<<
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yonah, I thought I would throw this in, too. I am one who doesn't necessarily see anything new in the "NT." Yes the Torah moves from stone to heart, yes their has been a transfer in weight from a Levitical Priesthood (still everlasting mind you) to the Melchizedekian Priesthood but by and large, all we see has either happened before or was prophesied to happen. So, when I see the Great Commission as we have discussed it here, I also think of the V'ahavta which in part says:

"Teach them diligently to your children and speak of them while you sit in your home, while you walk on the way, when you lay down and when you rise up."

The idea of teaching Torah in all we do, wherever and whenever we can, seems aligned to the Great Commission because let's face it... Yeshua wasn't calling the Lost Sheep back to a new way, but rather, to the "Light unto our path" that was forsaken and that causes God to punish his Israel in the first place.

Brakhot and Shabbat Shalom!
Ken
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,846
238
✟119,343.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Yonah, I thought I would throw this in, too. I am one who doesn't necessarily see anything new in the "NT." Yes the Torah moves from stone to heart, yes their has been a transfer in weight from a Levitical Priesthood (still everlasting mind you) to the Melchizedekian Priesthood but by and large, all we see has either happened before or was prophesied to happen. So, when I see the Great Commission as we have discussed it here, I also think of the V'ahavta which in part says:

"Teach them diligently to your children and speak of them while you sit in your home, while you walk on the way, when you lay down and when you rise up."

The idea of teaching Torah in all we do, wherever and whenever we can, seems aligned to the Great Commission because let's face it... Yeshua wasn't calling the Lost Sheep back to a new way, but rather, to the "Light unto our path" that was forsaken and that causes God to punish his Israel in the first place.

Brakhot and Shabbat Shalom!
Ken

ken,

1. The reason Yeshua called the lost sheep of Israel was because they were backslidden and out of covenant with God and they were under the law which had a specific blessing and curses attached to it. The Sermon on the Mount was all about getting Israel to perform the commandments of the law perfectly like the Father in heaven was perfect which coincides with being perfect in love. It was about repentance so they could make entrance into the earthly kingdom and rule as the head of the nations. This is why the meek would inherit the earth. Sadly, they were not being meek or peacemakers etc. Matthew 5, the Beautitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. They rejected Christ because they wanted a conquering Savior and refused to repent. Matthew 23:37-39. Christ also was to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the land and the kingdom concerning the Davidic covenant. Genesis 15 and Matthew 1 and Luke 1-3.

2. Christ taught the law of Moses and was raised in Judaism according the gospels including his role as the Messiah as seen in his age of going into God's service in Luke and the baptism in the book of John to be manifested to Israel and to fulfill the righteousness of the law.

3. So the historical context was all about repenting and doing the commandments of the law and belief in the Messiah and that he would save them from their sins and to receive the Kingdom to rule and reign the nations. Historically, this is not a message to the church today in the same context.
When Calvary happened everything changed and the new covenant came into being but Jeremiah 31 of the new covenant with Israel has not been made yet as far as them ruling the kingdom.

4. So much changed before the great commission came for the world had a wider door to receive the Lord and it wasn't about proselyting the gentiles into Judaism.
In Paul's day the jews were in the body of Christ as after Calvary. Paul said there is no jew, gentile, male or female, no bond, etc. for we are all one in Christ. At the same time Paul recognized that God had not forgotten Israel and their election for their covenant as the head of the nations found in Isaiah 2:2-4. It would and will happen when the fulness of the gentiles happens.

5. This is one reason that there is a rift in judaism with some as well as the whole essence of the law and what jews can do or not do. This need not be if the contexts are understood properly. Jews can be jews and in the body of Christ and many are and yet they still can be jews culturally. They shouldn't have to proselyte gentiles and the gentiles should not make jewish believers feel they are less than a gentile believer.
They were all christians in Antioch first and though it took a while for gradual revelation to come around Peter began to get a better picture 8-10 years later with Cornelius. Acts 10.
The jews were to have the law forever but not under the guise of Moses for it was temporary till the seed should come. Jeremiah talked about the new covenant not like the one Moses made and God would put it in their hearts.

6. The mechanics of the covenants and weakness of the commandments is why the new covenant was built on better promises and it involves more than just the blood of bulls and goats and the priesthood. The ethics of the Mosaic covenant are found in Romans where the man that doeth them shall live in them. The law had was taken advantaged by the law of sin and death and made them live to self effort and result in the frailty of man in sin more than overcoming sin. Romans 7.

7. The essence of the Great Commission was the message of the death, burial, and resurrection and not the law and there is a vast difference between the mechanics of the covenant of Moses and the new covenant of Christ in his blood and christian living for both the jew and the gentile. Law and grace are at opposite polars and yet they are very close at the same time in proximity because of the morality aspect. The whole law was connected with the moral aspect and to show man how sinful he was and the knowledge of sin, etc.

8. The letter of the law keeps Israel blinded according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:1-16 and this is why much has changed and it is important to understand the historical context of Jesus teachings under the Mosaic law before we can understand what it means to the church. Jesus was calling the lost sheep back to their covenant and to believe in him for he was the reality of the redemption plan for saving them. When they believe wholly as a nation God would take away their stony heart and give them a new heart and this will happen in the tribulation before they receive the new covenant of the death, burial, and resurrection and when he comes back when their nation is almost ready to be annihilated they will look on him who they have pierced Revelation 1 and they will become a nation born in one day for Zion who is travailing will deliver her children. Isaiah 66:6-7 and a little further on down. Sorry, I got a little long but, I am concerned about the rift between many christian believers and jewish believers and vice versa. God bless! Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I am concerned about the rift between many christian believers and jewish believers and vice versa. God bless! Jerry kelso

The main reason for that rift is that they are both following man-made religions instead of the bible. Protestant Christians may believe that they are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church, but most of their beliefs come straight from the RCC.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,603
4,463
64
Southern California
✟66,774.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
The main reason for that rift is that they are both following man-made religions instead of the bible. Protestant Christians may believe that they are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church, but most of their beliefs come straight from the RCC.
Oh brother.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,603
4,463
64
Southern California
✟66,774.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Who do you think is responsible for SUNday worship, Easter, Lent, Xmas, All Hallows, etc? (Most churches still follow all these pagan practices.)

Not Yeshua and not the apostles.
http://exposingdeceptions.org/Sun.html
Sunday worship? That goes back to the apostles. Acts 20:7

The other Christian holy days? The church of course, via the successors of the apostles. They are not pagan but Christian -- nothing pagan about celebrating the resurrection, i.e. I enjoy them very much.

I think if you want to make statements against the church, you should do it in the Theology forum, and not here in MJ. MJ is a haven of rest for those of us who are Torah keepers, some of whom belong to Christian churches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Who do you think is responsible for SUNday worship, Easter, Lent, Xmas, All Hallows, etc? (Most churches still follow all these pagan practices.)

Not Yeshua and not the apostles.
http://exposingdeceptions.org/Sun.html

Let's turn back the clock a few thousand years. Imagine this forum existed then.

Here's a post from an ancient poster, with a similar complaint:

the-pure-one-true-monotheist said:
Moses? Moses! Let's talk about Moses then!

Who do you think is responsible for having festivals on agricultural and astronomical days, animal sacrifice, the priestly caste, the death penalty for breaking "holy" days, holy shrines with "magic" powers, worship in special buildings and tents etc? (Most Israelites still follow these pagan practices)

Not to mention stealing a bunch of laws from the Babylonians!

Not me- I'm for the pure religion, you know...the one from the lost papyri of Abraham.

Look familiar?
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,632
4,675
Hudson
✟343,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The Messiah is the goal of the Torah, so if you open up the Torah and don't see the Messiah, then you are missing the point. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and is the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Jews who are still waiting for their Messiah or Muslims waiting for their Mahdi don't expect that they will start a new religion when they come, but that they will bring fullness to their religion, and that's precisely what Jesus did. For the first seven or so years after Jesus' ascension up until Peter's vision in Acts 10, all Christians were Torah-observant Messianic Jews, so Christianity originally was the fullness of Judaism, but it eventually grew separate from the Jewish roots of its faith. So I'd say Christianity is a sect of Messianic Judaism, which is a sect of Judaism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,149
7,245
✟509,998.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sunday worship? That goes back to the apostles. Acts 20:7

7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

I've always looked at this as a Havdallah service run amok. The clues are all there.

The first day of the week starts at sundown right after Shabbat ends. Paul talks til midnight, people fall asleep, so if sundown were say 6pm he was going on and on for six hours, else-wise if you are looking at it in Roman time he would have been speaking for 24 hours+. Then there's this

8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.

Indicating that the Shabbat was just over and now lamps can be lit

Then in verse 11 After talking until daylight, he left.

So Paul was preaching for about 9 hours, a looooooooooooooong havdallah service but not a worship service by any stretch.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ken,

1. The reason Yeshua called the lost sheep of Israel was because they were backslidden and out of covenant with God and they were under the law which had a specific blessing and curses attached to it. The Sermon on the Mount was all about getting Israel to perform the commandments of the law perfectly like the Father in heaven was perfect which coincides with being perfect in love. It was about repentance so they could make entrance into the earthly kingdom and rule as the head of the nations. This is why the meek would inherit the earth. Sadly, they were not being meek or peacemakers etc. Matthew 5, the Beautitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. They rejected Christ because they wanted a conquering Savior and refused to repent. Matthew 23:37-39. Christ also was to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the land and the kingdom concerning the Davidic covenant. Genesis 15 and Matthew 1 and Luke 1-3.

You just made the same mistake many make, you assume that the Jews are all of Israel. The nation of Israel divided into two nations, a Southern Kingdom Judah (the Jews) and the Northern Kingdom, Israel... who went into Assyria in 722BC (Judah did NOT) and never came back. There are records of 20,000+ coming back but over a million went in. They assimilated into that culture, God gave them up to their idols... and thus they "lost" their identity. With their minds and hearts on the lusts of the world, and with God giving them up, they ceased to retain God in their knowledge. So they became known throughout Jewish history as "the lost sheep of Israel." Yeshua said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Not Judah, salvation is certainly for them, too... but the weight was on going into the nations where Israel was scattered and calling them back. This is first prophesied in Deut. 30:1-6 and repeated often throughout the Prophets to include the first chapter of Hosea. A people driven into the nations and called, "Not my people," would have God call to them where they were scattered (nations) and called back and called "Sons of the Living God." Romans 9 covers this, Romans 11, and more. And incidentally, the Jews didn't reject him as a nation... over 20,000 of the 80,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem in that day accepted Yeshua as Messiah and continued to keep Torah... or so says Acts 21:20.

2. Christ taught the law of Moses and was raised in Judaism according the gospels including his role as the Messiah as seen in his age of going into God's service in Luke and the baptism in the book of John to be manifested to Israel and to fulfill the righteousness of the law.

The word "righteous" means "to conform to divine law." In means that in Hebrew, Greek, in the 1828 Websters, and in the modern online Websters. We are to seek righteousness, walk in righteousness... not unto salvation, but those that are His are to do this. And... "fulfill" does NOT mean "bring an end to," because if it did then Matt 5:17 would be contradicting itself like this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them."

A better and more balanced and reasonable definition as weighed against the rest of Scripture comes from Thayer:

2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.

In other words, his walk, his actions, his words... were to be the model we follow. His walk and our faith in it (and God's grace) release us from sin, from death, from decay... but not from the commandments which are eternal.

3. So the historical context was all about repenting and doing the commandments of the law and belief in the Messiah and that he would save them from their sins and to receive the Kingdom to rule and reign the nations. Historically, this is not a message to the church today in the same context.
When Calvary happened everything changed and the new covenant came into being but Jeremiah 31 of the new covenant with Israel has not been made yet as far as them ruling the kingdom.

You see change, I see a God that does not change. I also see a Hebrew word, teshuvah, that we translate as repent and treat as if it means "to turn from" when it has a deeper meaning in the Hebraic culture of the day. It is RETURN, as in to the Torah you forsook for idols to get sent into the nations to begin with. To the land that is your inheritance. To Israel, the community to which we belong. And to God as Lord, one who rules with authority over our lives. Teshuvah, repent... means to turn away from sin and worldly things that stand in contrast to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and TO those things I mentioned. Teshuvah cries for a destination to turn TO, repent does not.

4. So much changed before the great commission came for the world had a wider door to receive the Lord and it wasn't about proselyting the gentiles into Judaism.
In Paul's day the jews were in the body of Christ as after Calvary. Paul said there is no jew, gentile, male or female, no bond, etc. for we are all one in Christ. At the same time Paul recognized that God had not forgotten Israel and their election for their covenant as the head of the nations found in Isaiah 2:2-4. It would and will happen when the fulness of the gentiles happens.

I do not advocate joining Judaism at all. The Torah belongs to God... He called the Feasts, "My Feasts" and in the same verse it says, "The feasts of the LORD." That doesn't make them for only the Jews, that makes them for all who are His. A gentile, Jerry, is a pagan. You go back and you look at how that word is defined in early English dictionaries and you will see it meant "pagan, heathen, one who is neither Jew nor Christian." We retained that word in our bibles over time but the meaning changed. Not a gentile is a believer who is not Jewish. But the Hebrew is clear, while a Israelite can be in the goyim, the nations, he is not goyim he is Israel. That is why Paul said, "you WERE gentiles in the flesh" and "WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel" and "NOW you are fellow citizens." A "gentile believer" or a "gentile Christian" is an oxy-moron.

5. This is one reason that there is a rift in judaism with some as well as the whole essence of the law and what jews can do or not do. This need not be if the contexts are understood properly. Jews can be jews and in the body of Christ and many are and yet they still can be jews culturally. They shouldn't have to proselyte gentiles and the gentiles should not make jewish believers feel they are less than a gentile believer.
They were all christians in Antioch first and though it took a while for gradual revelation to come around Peter began to get a better picture 8-10 years later with Cornelius. Acts 10.
The jews were to have the law forever but not under the guise of Moses for it was temporary till the seed should come. Jeremiah talked about the new covenant not like the one Moses made and God would put it in their hearts.

There is not one rule from some and another rule for others. The Law, my friend... ON STONE was temporary until the seed should come AND THEN it would begin the process of being moved "from stone to the heart." Same God, same Torah, just a different location for the text of the covenant. This is mentioned in placed like Ezk. 11:19 and of course in Jer. 31:34/Heb. 8:8-11. The law (on stone) testified of Messiah so we would recognize him when he came and it led us to him as a Schoolmaster AND THEN through him it moves to the heart. By the way, the Acts 15 letter also contains this line... often ignored by most who hold your position:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The letter was to act as a starting point, not the finish line. "Do these few things and that will set you apart from your pagan ex-brethren and you will learn the rest as you go." And that is the point of verse 21.... do the things in 20 and then follow the prescription in 21 to learn the rest.

What you also lack here Jerry, is the historical context of what is even going on in relation to this letter. I will post something I wrote on it, should you care to investigate it and weigh it out.

6. The mechanics of the covenants and weakness of the commandments is why the new covenant was built on better promises and it involves more than just the blood of bulls and goats and the priesthood. The ethics of the Mosaic covenant are found in Romans where the man that doeth them shall live in them. The law had was taken advantaged by the law of sin and death and made them live to self effort and result in the frailty of man in sin more than overcoming sin. Romans 7.

I want you to think about something. God... the perfect all knowing Creator of the Universe... that God.... He is the author of each and every command you just called weak. I can explain the "better promises" to you but I think you need to focus on your paradigm a little first. I am not trying to sound condescending in anything I am writing here... I just know exactly where you are based on the things you have said. And one of them had a perfect God making mistakes with a weak series of commands that could never really do anything. That says you don't understand what He was doing and should probably, and I say this respectfully, remain silent on the issue until HE shows you His intent here.

Proverbs 10:19 Too much talking leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.

7. The essence of the Great Commission was the message of the death, burial, and resurrection and not the law and there is a vast difference between the mechanics of the covenant of Moses and the new covenant of Christ in his blood and christian living for both the jew and the gentile. Law and grace are at opposite polars and yet they are very close at the same time in proximity because of the morality aspect. The whole law was connected with the moral aspect and to show man how sinful he was and the knowledge of sin, etc.

No it wasn't... it is included in it but I repeat His mission...

1. Matt 4:17 From that time Yeshua began to preach, and to say, Repent*: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
* Repent - teshuvah.. a turning from one thing but TO ANOTHER. See my answer for #3 above
2. Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
3. Matt 10:5b Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:(6) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So he preached teshuvah, RETURN (to all that was forsaken to get driven into the nations to begin with as per the Prophets) and he said he was only sent to the lost sheep and only sent his disciples to the lost sheep. And brother... go look at Paul's commission in Greek:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Two times we see "and" and they are two different words. One is kai which is the word for "and" and the other is te, the word for "both" or "also." And, since ethnos is more often translated as NATIONS and not GENTILES, let's re-translate:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Nations, and kings, BOTH the children of Israel:

Look familiar? How about Jacob's/Israel's blessing?

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

So Paul is sent to bear his name before the nations and kings who were the children of Israel. He was going for the same lost sheep as Yeshua, as the other disciples... and since we are told to GO (by the way, it is a participle so it is "going") then the Great Commission is a continuation of the same mission... not something new.

8. The letter of the law keeps Israel blinded according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:1-16 and this is why much has changed and it is important to understand the historical context of Jesus teachings under the Mosaic law before we can understand what it means to the church. Jesus was calling the lost sheep back to their covenant and to believe in him for he was the reality of the redemption plan for saving them. When they believe wholly as a nation God would take away their stony heart and give them a new heart and this will happen in the tribulation before they receive the new covenant of the death, burial, and resurrection and when he comes back when their nation is almost ready to be annihilated they will look on him who they have pierced Revelation 1 and they will become a nation born in one day for Zion who is travailing will deliver her children. Isaiah 66:6-7 and a little further on down. Sorry, I got a little long but, I am concerned about the rift between many christian believers and jewish believers and vice versa. God bless! Jerry kelso

Yes, and that is why we follow the spirit behind the letter. That doesn't abrogate the letter, it means we find the spirit behind it. The letter says not to commit adultery, the spirit says to even look in lust at another is adultery. That is HARDER, it RAISES THE BAR... but doesn't abrogate the letter... we still don't have sex with somebody who is married or otherwise would count as adultery.

I appreciate the information you shared... I pray you take the time to read through my answers as I did yours.

Peace.
Ken
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This need not be if the contexts are understood properly.

Yes, context is everything. I wrote this 6 years ago and quite frankly I have learned much since then both in the way of supporting facts but also my writing has gotten better. So bear with it, the facts remain intact and add a depth to the context of what was really happening in Acts 15.

So there is this dispute, and the leaders of the faith come together, talk it out, and write a letter to the Gentiles. The letter gives a few commands, nothing new as all had been previously recorded in scripture, and that should be about the end of it, right? Well, like so much when it comes to scripture, something that seems simple gets touched by man and turned into a mass of confusion. I hope in the next few minutes, to shed some light on the contents of the Acts 15 letter.

The first thing we need to understand is what started the debate to begin with?

Acts 15:1 and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (NKJV)

* In this case, "the custom of Moses" is a reference to Torah(God's law or instruction).

Pretty simple, unless you have been circumcised on the 8th day of your life, you can't be saved. What is wrong here? Well, for starters, YOU weren't commanded to be circumcised on the 8th day of your life. That command was given to your father; obviously, an 8 day old baby isn't performing his own bris. Second, when did physical circumcision save us to begin with? The answer to that is it didn't. Like many aspects of the Tanach (OT), circumcisions, the feasts, the sacrifices...these things were pointing to something to come. They were a type, and we need to determine what the anti-type or shadow is. But that is another note.

What we have here are men from Judea, Jews, and as we see throughout the Apostles Writings, Yehoshua (Jesus) and Paul to an extent, spend a great deal of time rebuking those things which add to Torah or change it. Not every Pharisee was rebuked, and not every tradition external of scripture is rebuked. For example, in John 10:22-39 it appears that to some degree, Yehoshua took part in Hanukkah, the feast or festival of lights. Hanukkah is not a commanded holy day, but it isn't based on pagan origins either. So, we see no rebuke of this extra biblical holiday. No, the rebukes were clearly tied to that which stood against the teachings of scripture. Circumcision unto salvation is not scripture, but we do know where it comes from.

What must I do to be saved a proselyte?

About 50 years before the council of Jerusalem, not too long before the time Yehoshua was born, there was a great debate between the two leading teachers of that day, Hillel and Shamai. Beit Hillel (Beit means house but can also be used as school) taught the spirit of the law and his teachings are pretty well aligned to what Yehoshua taught when he was here. It should be noted that Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the grandson of Hillel. Beit Shamai on the other hand, taught the letter of the law, a much stricter interpretation of Torah than what Hillel taught.

So, one day these two heavyweights engage in debate about what should be expected of a proselyte. (A convert to Judaism) Hillel took the softer position, saying that a person must abstain from idols, from fornication, from blood and food offered to idols. (Does that all sound familiar?) He also added that a person must know the two great commands, because as Yehoshua said in Matthew 22:40, "all Torah and the Prophets hang on knowing we are to love God and neighbor." (Paraphrased)

Shamai however was more of a hardliner. He also took the same positions Hillel took but he added the need to know ALL 613 commands rather than just the "big two," AND that a proselyte would need to be circumcised in order to become a Jew. In the end, Shamai's position became hallacha or "Jewish law."

*It should be noted that both men agreed that these were what was expected for the new convert and that the new convert would learn more as they grow.

From this you should be able to see that the men from Judea that confronted Paul and Barnabas were of the school of Shamai or were at least adhering to this 50 year old Jewish law and were applying it to those non-Jews who were following Yehoshua. As a quick side note, we must understand that the first 30-40 years of the faith had gentiles or non-Jews going into the synagogues on Sabbath to hear Torah read. In practice, there was no difference between an orthodox Jew and a Yehoshua following Jew OR gentile. So because the non-Jews were going to the synagogues, many of what we would now call orthodox Jews placed their expectations on these gentiles... and one of those expectations was "get circumcised to be saved."

Are there more than these four?

When the cases had been made before the council, a ruling was handed down and a letter was drafted. It was to be sent to the gentiles/nations, and the main point was:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (NKJV)

Many today, especially in the church, teach that the above was all that was expected of the gentile believer in Yehoshua. Well, as you would expect, I don't agree. Where do we see not to serve another god? Where does it say not to steal? Is it ok to bear false witness now? Obviously, when just a little reason it applied, we can clearly see that there is more that is expected of us than what is written in the Acts 15 letter. I submit that this council convened to right an old wrong! I submit that the same argument that occurred 50 years before this council came together, was argued one more time and reversed. The pagans in this time period fornicated with pagan temple prostitutes, made offerings to idols and ate things sacrificed to idols, etc. By asking that a new gentile believer in Yehoshua to abstain from these things, you were "setting them apart" from their pagan brethren. They clearly were then to be taught what was expected of them, they were to "STUDY to show themselves approved as workman unto God."

I conclude then, that the letter in Acts 15 was the starting point, not the finish line.

Peace to you.
Ken
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,603
4,463
64
Southern California
✟66,774.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

I've always looked at this as a Havdallah service run amok. The clues are all there.

The first day of the week starts at sundown right after Shabbat ends. Paul talks til midnight, people fall asleep, so if sundown were say 6pm he was going on and on for six hours, else-wise if you are looking at it in Roman time he would have been speaking for 24 hours+. Then there's this

8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.

Indicating that the Shabbat was just over and now lamps can be lit

Then in verse 11 After talking until daylight, he left.

So Paul was preaching for about 9 hours, a looooooooooooooong havdallah service but not a worship service by any stretch.
I've never been to a Havdalah service that has a sermon. But a homily at a Mass can go on indefinitely.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Sunday worship? That goes back to the apostles. Acts 20:7

The other Christian holy days? The church of course, via the successors of the apostles. They are not pagan but Christian -- nothing pagan about celebrating the resurrection, i.e. I enjoy them very much.

I think if you want to make statements against the church, you should do it in the Theology forum, and not here in MJ. MJ is a haven of rest for those of us who are Torah keepers, some of whom belong to Christian churches.

If you are a Torah keeper, then you cannot be Catholic, and vice-versa. They are two different realities, with different laws and different leaders. Either the pope is basically god on earth, or Yahweh is.

The popes, starting with Constantine, as Peter was never part of that group, changed times and feasts in direct opposition to the Torah. The apostles met every day, so taking one verse out of context means nothing. Name the verse that says, "You shall no longer keep the Sabbath holy, but the first day like the pagans around you." If you find one, burn that bible, because it's lying.

"These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times." [Leviticus 23: 4]

The resurrection happened before sunset on the Sabbath. Exactly 3 days and 3 nights after he was put into the tomb. He was gone before anyone showed up to look. If Mary and Martha had waited until Monday to visit, he still would have been gone.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,603
4,463
64
Southern California
✟66,774.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
If you are a Torah keeper, then you cannot be Catholic, and vice-versa.
Nonsense. I keep Torah, and I'm a Catholic. There is no disconnect at all. I am kosher, I keep shabbat, and I observe the holy days. I do all of that as well as do all my Catholic obligations and holidays. Shabbat on Saturday, Mass on Sunday, just like in Acts 20. No problem.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,603
4,463
64
Southern California
✟66,774.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
The popes, starting with Constantine, as Peter was never part of that group, changed times and feasts in direct opposition to the Torah. The apostles met every day, so taking one verse out of context means nothing. Name the verse that says, "You shall no longer keep the Sabbath holy, but the first day like the pagans around you." If you find one, burn that bible, because it's lying.
This did not happen with Constantine, although it did happen during his reign. I'm always baffled by Christians who give ecclesial power to an emperor, when in fact it lay with the bishops. Breaking bread on Sunday began with the Apostles.

Sabbath was kept by the Apostles because they were Jews. Gentile believers were not required to keep the Shabbat -- see Acts 15 in every Bible.
 
Upvote 0