What's it take to be a Messianic?

[Lulav]

How do you reconcile your understanding of Hebrews 7 with Hebrews 8, where the writer states that if Yeshua were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, and that is because there has been no change in the Levitical law regarding the Priest.

I reconcile it by saying that Yeshua being High Priest is of a different order than that of the Levitical, thus there is no conflict, He could not be a levitical high priest... Also He is regarded as a High Priest in the Heavens...

Your interpretation at face value, creates quite a lot of contradictions, so I am interested if you have a way of reconciling this.

A brief explanation of my view.

The Mosaic covenant is One covenant, with One law. If a person agrees and is obligated to the Mosaic covenant, then they can not pick and choose which of the laws they like to do and which they decide not to do. It is all a requirement, (assuming the particular law is for you like male, or female, Jewish or Gentile, Priest or not, etc).

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.

Deut 4:2 says the Mosaic law can not be altered. You can't add to it, or take away from it.

Which brings us to the NT.

Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

Jesus is now the High Priest. Jesus could not have been a High Priest under the Mosaic covenant since Yeshua was not in the line of Aaron. That is a change of priesthood.

Yeshua is the High Priest under the New Covenant. If Jesus is your high priest, then you must be under the New Covenant. If a descendent of Aaron will be your High Priest, then you are under the Mosaic covenant.

Only one can be your High Priest. So you can only be obligated to one of the covenants, Mosaic or New.

Yeshua's mother, Miriam was a cousin to Elisheva who was a daughter of Aaron. Her husband was also a priest. This means that John was of the priesthood by birth. Miriam passed this on to her son, Yeshua.

As a sidenote to those who like this kind of thing. John the Immerser's father, Zacariah was a priest that served in the eighth course as designated by King David as the one called Abiyah. 'Yah is my Father'. The very next course, the ninth, is called Yeshua.

In Ezekiel's Temple the Levites could not be priests - they were banned from that task. Yeshua could not, therefore, be of the Levitical Order of the Priesthood. But we know he was in the Order of Melchizedek.

Where did you get that idea? The Levitical priesthood is reestablished, however with one caveat, the Levites were allowed to do the duties that didn't involve going inside the Temple, that was in punishment for their sins. Those Levites of the line of Zadok were to serve in G-d's presence.

44:15 “‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and serve me as guards.

 

[Qnts2]

Yeshua's mother, Miriam was a cousin to Elisheva who was a daughter of Aaron. Her husband was also a priest. This means that John was of the priesthood by birth. Miriam passed this on to her son, Yeshua.

As a sidenote to those who like this kind of thing. John the Immerser's father, Zacariah was a priest that served in the eighth course as designated by King David as the one called Abiyah. 'Yah is my Father'. The very next course, the ninth, is called Yeshua.

Avodat;59925928]In Ezekiel's Temple the Levites could not be priests - they were banned from that task. Yeshua could not, therefore, be of the Levitical Order of the Priesthood. But we know he was in the Order of Melchizedek.

Please show scripture which says Elizabeth was a Levite?

And please give your logic on how that proves Mary was also a Levite.

 

[pat34lee]

The fundamental decision every Messianic must make is whether s/he is more comfortable identifying as part of:

• A Gentile group who eats pork, meets on Sunday, cannot help with life-cycle events like a bar mitzvah or Jewish wedding, and whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

or

• A Jewish group who eats kosher, meets on Shabbat, has full support for all Jewish life-cycle events, from bris to funeral, and whose theology is focused fundamentally practical issues based on God's explicit instructions.

This is a false choice. There are Jews who eat pork, and follow few, if any, traditions. There are also gentiles who keep the Torah, without the need of keeping the traditions of the Jews.

The Scriptures were written for all people. The talmud was written specifically for the Jews. Why would messianics want to follow it?

 

[mishkan]

I just wanted to point out this is inacurate. The Reconstructionist movement does not hold to the premise that there is no God. I have seen this written elsewhere too but it doesn't seem to correspond with actual Reconstructionnist belief. The confusion may be caused by the particular language Reconstructionist use to describe God. They do however plainly state they are not atheists.

OK... I wasn't trying to go into a detailed analysis--just giving a sense of the broad spectrum. You make a good point. However, here is my take on Kaplan and the movement he started:

The view more popularly associated with Kaplan is strict naturalism, à la Dewey, which has been criticized as using religious terminology to mask a nontheistic, if not outright atheistic, position. However, a second strand of Kaplanian theology exists, which makes clear that at times Kaplan believed that God has ontological reality, a real and absolute existence independent of human beliefs. In this latter theology, Kaplan still rejects classical forms of theism and any belief in miracles, but holds to a position that in some ways is neoplatonic​

Kaplan himself was not always consistent, so it is difficult pin down precisely what is taught within Recon shuls. But it is my understanding that, at the very least, Kaplan generally took the position that there is no personal God, and that what we call "God" is really the interplay between natural existence and human drives and experiences.

I find this position, however it is nuanced, to be in direct opposition to the beliefs evidenced by historical Judaism and the Tanakh.

 

[yedida]

[/LIST]
This is a false choice. There are Jews who eat pork, and follow few, if any, traditions. There are also gentiles who keep the Torah, without the need of keeping the traditions of the Jews.

The Scriptures were written for all people. The talmud was written specifically for the Jews. Why would messianics want to follow it?

What is your take on this newest phenomena of gentiles wanting to claim to be Messianic but think Torah was nailed to the cross, or not quite so bad, not nailed to the cross but totally unnecessary and therefore they observe nothing more than maybe having a time of corporate worship on Sat?

 

[ChavaK]

OK... I wasn't trying to go into a detailed analysis--just giving a sense of the broad spectrum. You make a good point. However, here is my take on Kaplan and the movement he started:

The view more popularly associated with Kaplan is strict naturalism, à la Dewey, which has been criticized as using religious terminology to mask a nontheistic, if not outright atheistic, position. However, a second strand of Kaplanian theology exists, which makes clear that at times Kaplan believed that God has ontological reality, a real and absolute existence independent of human beliefs. In this latter theology, Kaplan still rejects classical forms of theism and any belief in miracles, but holds to a position that in some ways is neoplatonic​

Kaplan himself was not always consistent, so it is difficult pin down precisely what is taught within Recon shuls. But it is my understanding that, at the very least, Kaplan generally took the position that there is no personal God, and that what we call "God" is really the interplay between natural existence and human drives and experiences.

I find this position, however it is nuanced, to be in direct opposition to the beliefs evidenced by historical Judaism and the Tanakh.

The Reconstructionist movement seems to have a wide range of beliefs regarding G-d. However, all the people I have met who are associated with it are deeply spiritual and definitely not atheists.

 

[ChavaK]

[/list]
This is a false choice. There are Jews who eat pork, and follow few, if any, traditions. There are also gentiles who keep the Torah, without the need of keeping the traditions of the Jews.

The Scriptures were written for all people. The talmud was written specifically for the Jews. Why would messianics want to follow it?

I gotta agree with you Following G-d's law and following Jewish traditions and culture are two very different things.

 

[mishkan]

This is a false choice. There are Jews who eat pork, and follow few, if any, traditions.

Yes. We call them "assimilated. They are, in effect, following Christian teaching regarding the Torah, though they don't realize it.

There are also gentiles who keep the Torah, without the need of keeping the traditions of the Jews.

Absolutely. These are Hebrew Roots followers. I even named some of their more popular teachers.

The Scriptures were written for all people. The talmud was written specifically for the Jews. Why would messianics want to follow it?

This is the statement of a Hebrew Roots person. No disparagement intended--just an observation. I don't know if that is your view, or if you are just sharing the perspective someone else holds.

 

[ChavaK]

What is your take on this newest phenomena of gentiles wanting to claim to be Messianic but think Torah was nailed to the cross, or not quite so bad, not nailed to the cross but totally unnecessary and therefore they observe nothing more than maybe having a time of corporate worship on Sat?

That seems strange....if they think the Torah was essentially nullified, why would they observe shabbat at all? Or are they a group that accepts the
10 commandments but not the rest of the Torah?

 

[Avodat]

Yeshua's mother, Miriam was a cousin to Elisheva who was a daughter of Aaron. Her husband was also a priest. This means that John was of the priesthood by birth. Miriam passed this on to her son, Yeshua.

As a sidenote to those who like this kind of thing. John the Immerser's father, Zacariah was a priest that served in the eighth course as designated by King David as the one called Abiyah. 'Yah is my Father'. The very next course, the ninth, is called Yeshua.

Avodat;59925928]In Ezekiel's Temple the Levites could not be priests - they were banned from that task. Yeshua could not, therefore, be of the Levitical Order of the Priesthood. But we know he was in the Order of Melchizedek.

Where did you get that idea? The Levitical priesthood is reestablished, however with one caveat, the Levites were allowed to do the duties that didn't involve going inside the Temple, that was in punishment for their sins. Those Levites of the line of Zadok were to serve in G-d's presence.[/quote]

I had forgotten the vs15 bit. There were two groups of Levites.

Ezekiel 10: The Levites who went far from me when Israel went astray and who wandered from me... They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices... 15 But the priests who are Levites and descendants of Zadok and who faithfully carried out the duties of my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me are to come near to minister to me... They alone are to enter my sanctuary... . The first group are banned from ministering to G_d, but may do certain jobs. Only the Levitical priests may minister to him.

 

[mishkan]

The Reconstructionist movement seems to have a wide range of beliefs regarding G-d. However, all the people I have met who are associated with it are deeply spiritual and definitely not atheists.

I think there is a difference between being "spiritual" and being a follower of the personal God of the Hebrews, whose name is YHWH.

Don't you?

 

[ChavaK]

I think there is a difference between being "spiritual" and being a follower of the personal God of the Hebrews, whose name is YHWH.

Don't you?

any "spirituality" not associated with G-d is a
false spirituality. I don't see that in these people.

 

[mishkan]

any "spirituality" not associated with G-d is a
false spirituality. I don't see that in these people.

What is "false spirituality"???

Conversely, what would make up a "true spirituality", in your view?

 

[Avodat]

Originally Posted by mishkan

In short, MJ practice may be all over the map, while still living as part of the local Jewish community.
​

I was asking, in particular, about the part I highlighted in bold type which is how we normally deal with these things when posting a response to part of a quote.

Your response (in the quote above) doesn't relate to Sunday meeting Gentiles who eat pork as far as I can see, certainly not if they are living in a Jewish community. Who are these people whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

 

[mishkan]

Originally Posted by mishkan

In short, MJ practice may be all over the map, while still living as part of the local Jewish community.

​

I was asking, in particular, about the part I highlighted in bold type which is how we normally deal with these things when posting a response to part of a quote.

Your response (in the quote above) doesn't relate to Sunday meeting Gentiles who eat pork as far as I can see, certainly not if they are living in a Jewish community. Who are these people whose theology is focused entirely on non-verifiable assertions.

Ah! Sorry, I answered hurriedly, and didn't notice the highlighted line.

What I mean by that is the endless strife and debate over topics like election, pneumatology, charismatic cessationism, and even trinitarianism. None of these sorts of doctrines can ever be objectively verified, yet they are consistently used as excuses to brand and separate from others (often abusively so) who are also doing their best to follow the God of Scripture, and his Messiah.

The professing Body of Messiah is repeatedly splintered by issues that will never be, by their very nature and definition, resolved.

 

[Avodat]

Ah! Sorry, I answered hurriedly, and didn't notice the highlighted line.

What I mean by that is the endless strife and debate over topics like election, pneumatology, charismatic cessationism, and even trinitarianism. None of these sorts of doctrines can ever be objectively verified, yet they are consistently used as excuses to brand and separate from others (often abusively so) who are also doing their best to follow the God of Scripture, and his Messiah.

The professing Body of Messiah is repeatedly splintered by issues that will never be, by their very nature and definition, resolved.

Thanks.

 

[yedida]

That seems strange....if they think the Torah was essentially nullified, why would they observe shabbat at all? Or are they a group that accepts the
10 commandments but not the rest of the Torah?

I think your last group are following the 10 and call themselves Messianic - that's pretty much the extent of it. This would be the beginnings for most gentiles coming in. But as time rolls on, the Spirit leads this gentile into more, baby steps. Just my own opinion here, but infant Messianics should be growing after 5, 10 years and learning more of what Yeshua walked and taught.
Those in your first question don't even do that. If you'll look at my post again you'll see that Shabbat was not included in the first group, only in the group that feels Torah is unnecessary (but not nailed to the cross) and these gentiles are obeying the 10.

 

[ChavaK]

What is "false spirituality"???

Basically something that someone is doing to try to make themselves
feel good, rather than connecting with G-d.

Conversely, what would make up a "true spirituality", in your view?

Connecting with G-d.

 

[mishkan]

Basically something that someone is doing to try to make themselves
feel good, rather than connecting with G-d.

Connecting with G-d.

And how would you, as an outside observer, discern whether someone was following one or the other?

 

[pat34lee]

What is your take on this newest phenomena of gentiles wanting to claim to be Messianic but think Torah was nailed to the cross, or not quite so bad, not nailed to the cross but totally unnecessary and therefore they observe nothing more than maybe having a time of corporate worship on Sat?

As long as there are two or more choices in anything, somebody is going to take the second one, which is why we have 900 Christian and messianic denominations with different beliefs.