Monday, September 3, 2012

Messianic Halacha: To Codify or Not to Codify...Question 34


It seems to me that the Torah communicated precisely that which could be communicated in writing and nothing more, implying that anything left indefinite was meant to be supplied with a flexible tradition.  However, my thinking is at odds with Rabbinic Judaism...sort of.  Rabbinic Judaism admits that the Oral Torah, ideally, should've been left alone as a pluralistic, oral tradition.  And they'd probably agree with me that, in addition to being an oxymoron, the Talmud has the following WEAKNESSES:

(1) impractical (as evidenced by the presence of law codes such as Shulchan Aruch and Mishneh Torah), an idea best expressed in Ecc 12:12, "My son, beware of anything beyond these.  Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh";

(2) confusing (as evidenced the genre of endless Talmudic commentaries);

(3) inefficient (as evidenced by the historical fact that the original oral tradition was transmitted orally);

(4) un-democratic (as opposed to the oral transmission method which resulted in each layman being a master of the oral tradition).

But they'd also say that it was necessary to codify due to the overriding threat that all tradition could've been lost post-70 C.E.  And they say that since it has been established then it carries the force of law (albeit, a law that is open to interpretation).

Are there any STRENGTHS to having a codified oral tradition?  Well, I wouldn't call it a strength but there is a POSSIBILITY that the codification ensured that the oral tradition was not lost.  I'm not sure I agree but this is the common understanding.  Although, it seems to me that the advantages of a written oral tradition would've been outweighed by the confusion brought on by eliminating the back and forth, give and take, question and answering process of the oral tradition.

However, allowing Messianic halacha to remain un-codified would be a threat.  It would mean implicitly allowing the non-Messianic community to have authority over the Messianic educational sphere.

So let's open it up for discussion:

QUESTION 34:

What are the pros/cons of codifying Messianic halacha?

132 comments:

  1. Any system left unorganized soon becomes inaccessible to the layman. Any system left inaccessible to the layman soon becomes elitist. Any system left to the elite soon becomes tyrannical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankfully, in the Jewish world, all parts of the system are open to "laymen". All Jews are encouraged to become scholars and any Jew can become a rabbi and even a judge on a beit din irrespective of his background.

      Delete
    2. All parts of the system? Hardly. The Talmud is not for the novice--and even the parts accessible to the novice, the novice is prohibited from attempting to interpret on his own--he is required to seek out expert opinions.

      Delete
    3. First of all, you just substituted laymen with novices. You see what you did there. You can be a religious layman, but you don't have to be a novice. Also, it's true that when it comes to interpreting halacha one is not to do "whatever seemed right in their own eyes." (Judges 17:6). We "are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit" (Deuteronomy 12:8) To be a Jew is to be part of a community and to abide by its rules.

      Delete
    4. Re: "To be a Jew is to be part of a community and to abide by its rules."

      The falsity of this statement is proven by the fact that Orthodox Jews would require Believers to renounce Yeshua.

      Re: "You substituted laymen with novices."

      Then let me be clear: the Talmud is not designed for laymen. It is only for the expert. Can a layperson read it? Yes, absolutely. Can he also understand it? NO! And why? Because it is a convoluted mess. It is nothing like the unwritten Oral Tradition.

      The Oral Torah when it was still an Oral Torah could be understood by even the layperson--the non-expert. The codification of the Oral Torah resulted in the destruction of an ancient system of education. It replaced simplicity and efficiency with an endless, convoluted mess.

      Delete
    5. "Talmud..is a convoluted mess."

      Peter, say no more - your view of Judaism is quite clear.

      "The Oral Torah when it was still an Oral Torah could be understood by even the layperson--the non-expert."

      Peter, you have a very confused and classically Christian understanding of what Talmud is and what it is not. You think of it as a book of traditions mascaraing as laws. Did you read it (there are English translations)? Did you see its various logical subdivisions, some having to do with observances of Shabbat, others pertaining to day-to-day business activities, etc, commentaries on difficulties of scripture and interpretations of prophecies? Did you see the arguments between different sages?

      Talmud, first and foremost, is a conversation between generations of Jews that continues to this day.

      "The codification of the Oral Torah resulted in the destruction of an ancient system of education. It replaced simplicity and efficiency with an endless, convoluted mess."

      Peter, the Christian hatred of Talmud is a convoluted mess, not Talmud.

      Delete
    6. Gene,

      The Talmud is a body of law. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise?

      And, by the way, just because I don't like the Talmud doesn't mean I don't like Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was around long before the Talmud.

      Delete
    7. "And, by the way, just because I don't like the Talmud doesn't mean I don't like Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was around long before the Talmud."

      It's like saying that I like the Jewish people, but Israel is illegitimate and has no right to exist. It's a common refrain in some circles of haters.

      Also, you wouldn't have a clue about what "Oral Torah" was if it were not for the Jewish sages passing it along in Talmud and other works. No that it would really have any bearing on you either way, Peter.

      Delete
    8. Once again, if wanting to streamline the Talmud equates with hating Oral Torah then Maimonides hated the Oral Torah more than anyone else in history.

      I think you are being influenced by the non-Messianics that you hang out with. I'll just tell you that right now.

      I also think you're acting like a jealous older brother. G-d has called back the younger brother and helped him learn Torah but this makes you so jealous. You had always been the one with the special knowledge--it was your defining characteristic. You were "the brother who kept the Torah." And now there's someone else keeping the Torah.

      Perhaps you are the one going through an identity crises. The encouragement that I can offer you is that you can still be the older brother to the gentiles. An older brother can either be your worst enemy or a good friend. Take up your new identity, look at the gentiles as brothers who must learn their father's instructions, be their friend, not their enemy.

      Delete
  2. Amen. That is how it is in our congregation as well. We have Bible study classes that range from the the newly converted (which comprise about 2/3 of our congregation to an advanced, seminary-level, no holds barred anything goes theology class. We have seven elders besides myself and I'm currently mentoring three young men towards full-time ministry, any of which can fill the pulpit at any time. They all teach currently in some capacity or another.

    However, not everyone is going to be able to find their way through a byzantine (at best) or chaotic (at worst) conglomeration of rulings, many of which seem at first glance to contradict each other. To me (and I admit to a smidgin of ocd-ness) organization and neatness makes things more readily accessible, and simpler to use. I say take every obstacle between the Word and the people as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Messianic Halacha" - I think calling what you propose a "Hebrew Roots Movement Articles of Faith" would be more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene,

      Try to see it from the gentiles point of view. They can't go to Orthodox shul like you--they are too weak and the yoking together with non-Believers proves too tempting for many. And yet if they want to learn halacha, they can't do it at UMJC: the UMJC, from my experience, is not interested in "Rabbinic Judaism."

      Can you try to see the problem from their perspective for just a moment? Take a moment and try.

      Delete
    2. "the UMJC, from my experience, is not interested in "Rabbinic Judaism."

      And yet, you wrote the other week a post titled "The UMJC Says that the Sages of the Talmud Hold Divine Authority". Peter, do you see the inconsistency in your attacks on UMJC (and other MJ bodies), with first saying that UMJC considers words of Sages/rabbis divinely authorized and then just days later saying that they are not interested in what the same Sages/rabbis had to say?

      Delete
    3. They're as schizophrenic as FFOZ. The Sanhedrin was the same way--preaching one thing with their words and another with their actions.

      UMJC teaches that Rabbinic Judaism is Divine and yet they don't teach Rabbinic halacha in their synagogues. Anyone out there who has attended UMJC synagogues for years like myself and my wife will know what I'm talking about.

      I tried to find someone who wanted to pray in the traditional manner. There was only one guy who was vaguely interested.

      They had a class to learn cantillation. The class dwindled to one guy, a foreigner. No one is interested!

      They have a sign at the oneg room that explains kashrut--but it is only the "Biblical" kashrut. They don't care about the halacha of kashrut--they certainly wouldn't go through the pains that your wife goes through. They don't teach the Oral Tradition of kashrut, only the Written version like the Karaites.

      Do you understand what I'm describing? It's not the fault of my critique--it's the fact that they are schizophrenic, praising Rabbinic halacha with their mouths whilst avoiding it like the plague in their daily practice.

      Delete
    4. "They're as schizophrenic as FFOZ. "

      I thought we were still talking about UMJC?

      Delete
    5. "I tried to find someone who wanted to pray in the traditional manner. There was only one guy who was vaguely interested."

      That's a different story. I go to an Orthodox shul, as you know, but sometimes it's a struggle to get 10 Jews on a weekday to pray (no problem on Friday night, Sat. morning/night, or Sunday morning). People are busy or whatever - we all have our excuses. And that's in a place that ALWAYS prays in a traditional manner, not just as an afterthought between worship songs.

      Delete
  4. They discourage gentiles from wearing Talit and a Kippa, but will have a bat-Mitzva ceremony for a girl that is not Jewish according to halacha...

    Schizophrenic? You bet your sweet beepy....

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know I'm going to regret commenting here, but thus far only Gene has been presenting comments that balance out the various opinions flying around the blogosphere about all things "Messianic" and "Hebrew Roots."

    I don't know from the UMJC, but I do admit that the "standards" for what is and isn't considered "permitted" for a Gentile Christian relative to the mitzvot aren't well defined (the subject of my "meditation" tomorrow). However, that doesn't mean that it's invalid for religious Jewish people to observe halachah as they understand it, just because we see it as inconsistent or confusing.

    Oh, and Dan, I see I'm not the only one who fondly remembers Rowan and Martin's Laugh In. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "I know I'm going to regret commenting here"

      I hope not! Always feel free to comment.

      Delete
    2. >> thus far only Gene has been presenting comments that balance out the various opinions flying around the blogosphere about all things "Messianic" and "Hebrew Roots."

      Oh my!

      On the contrary, James, isn't it true that you, Gene, Boaz and the FFOZ gang, Mike Miller, Derek Leman, and Jacob Fronczak all subscribe to Divine Invitation theology and/or Bilateral Ecclesiology theology, and regularly write to that end on your blogs?

      If you're going to talk about balance, you must concede that the Messianic blogosphere has been imbalanced in favor of your view.

      It's positively refreshing to have an alternative view, one outside the supersessionoia echo chamber. :-)

      Delete
    3. Poor choice of words on my part, Judah. I meant that only Gene was representing an alternate point of view on *this* little corner of the blogosphere (i.e. Peter's blog).

      I was hoping that everything would stay civil since I'm not interested in yet another blog comment name calling session, but I see you decided to start in with the "supersessionoia" comments already.

      Delete
  6. "However, that doesn't mean that it's invalid for religious Jewish people to observe halachah as they understand it, just because we see it as inconsistent or confusing."

    James, The problem is that THEY DON"T UNDERSTAND IT...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan, the problem is *who* doesn't understand it, the UMJC or Judaism in general?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Really, Dan. If I knew for sure, I wouldn't have asked. I'll assume you meant the UMJC, but like I said, I'm not a mind reader. You could just answer the question in a straightforward manner, ya know. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. James,

    Let me put 1+1=2 for you...

    Orthodox religious Jewish people wrote halacha.

    UMJC is comprised of 90% Gentiles.

    What don't you understand here?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "UMJC is comprised of 90% Gentiles."

    Dan, for argument I will let you make an ass-umption that it was indeed so comprised. This makes your argument that UMJC is racist and mistreating Gentiles as you have been painting it to be fall flat on its face (or the other part of the body). In fact, these numbers tell us that Hebrew Roots (One-Law / Two-House) communities, which lack Jews by any measure, are the ones that least represent the body of Messiah today, even less so then many of the churches, where Jews are relatively plentiful these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so fast Gene'le...

      I forgot to add the 2 house people...most of them are UMJC graduates......

      Delete
    2. Dan, I don't get why you always dump on "2 house people" like you do. The blogs you patronize most (Judah's and this one) are Two-House. The "Ten Lost Tribes" are your best friends!

      Delete
  11. Dan, I already said I don't know a thing about the UMJC, so I'm hardly in a position to comment on them, their members, or their practices. My original comment had only two short points:

    1. I agree that "halachah" within the larger Messianic Jewish world, especially as it applies to non-Jews within the movement, needs to be tightened up. There are a lot of inconsistencies and I don't blame Peter and other non-Jews for being confused and feeling like the leading organizations in the movement are somehow a little psychotic.

    2. I want to emphasize that Judaism has the right to establish halachah for itself and that we Gentiles don't have the right to come in from the outside and say otherwise.

    That's it.

    When I questioned you above Dan, I was just seeking clarification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I want to emphasize that Judaism has the right to establish halachah for itself and that we Gentiles don't have the right to come in from the outside and say otherwise."

      Well this goes the same for Messianic Jews, not just gentiles, and Dan has already pointed out the hypocrisy there.

      Delete
    2. So what are you saying Zion? That Jews *don't* have the right to establish their own parameters? By inference then, do Messianic Jews also have no right to establish their own standards of practice? Then who does? Are we Gentiles going to walk into the synagogues and "show them how it's done?" Seems rather presumptuous to me.

      Maybe we could better spend our time tending to our own houses, so to speak, then worrying about someone else's. As I pointed out to Dan below, OL/TH is experiencing its own inconsistencies in behavior. Oh, and I previously admitted (see above, Zion) that more traditional elements of Messianic Judaism could stand to tighten up their halachic requirements for both Jews and Gentiles. Inconsistency is not the same as hypocracy. If it were, then both MJ and OL/TH would be guilty of that hypocracy. It might be more gracious to "accuse" all of these different movements of continuing to "evolve" in their practice. Hence Peter's own attempts at developing some sort of "Messianic Gentile" halachah.

      Delete
    3. "So what are you saying Zion? That Jews *don't* have the right to establish their own parameters? By inference then, do Messianic Jews also have no right to establish their own standards of practice? Then who does? Are we Gentiles going to walk into the synagogues and "show them how it's done?" Seems rather presumptuous to me."

      We were talking about Judaism, can Messianic Jews come in and change Judaism anymore than a Gentile? There seems to be some underlying assumptions in your views. Maybe you can clarify.

      "Maybe we could better spend our time tending to our own houses, so to speak, then worrying about someone else's. As I pointed out to Dan below, OL/TH is experiencing its own inconsistencies in behavior. Oh, and I previously admitted (see above, Zion) that more traditional elements of Messianic Judaism could stand to tighten up their halachic requirements for both Jews and Gentiles. Inconsistency is not the same as hypocracy. If it were, then both MJ and OL/TH would be guilty of that hypocracy. It might be more gracious to "accuse" all of these different movements of continuing to "evolve" in their practice. Hence Peter's own attempts at developing some sort of "Messianic Gentile" halachah."

      As Dan already mentioned, One Law does not consider the traditional Halachah as authoritative so there is no problem there, even if some of the traditions are borrowed. It is groups who claim it is authoritative, then point their fingers at others for trying to change it, and yet they themselves are not even keeping it... that is hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. Zion, since I've addressed, at length, my perspectives on One Law borrowing and adapting Jewish halachah below, rather than maintaining two separate and parallel conversation threads, maybe you can scroll down, read what I said, and then respond to it there.

      Briefly though, I continue to maintain that normative Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on, in this case) has the right to establish and maintain their own standards and that Gentiles like you and I do not have the right to walk into their synagogues and tell them to change.

      If we are to consider Messianic Judaism as a rather fledgling addition to normative Judaism (and yes, there are many difficulties with this view and MJ certainly has a long way to go), then I'd have to say that neither you nor I have the right to tell people who are halachically Jewish and Messianic that they don't have the right to develop and maintain their own halachah or consider the traditional sages to be authoritative.

      The kicker comes in when Gentiles willingly choose to enter into a Messianic Jewish congregation or group (as opposed to One Law or Two House) and yet refuse to abide by the standards of that congregation. How is that sustainable or ethical? I wouldn't just walk into my local Baptist church and tell them I wanted to become a member but was unwilling to abide by their standards.

      Anyway, see you below.

      Delete
    5. Briefly though, I continue to maintain that normative Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on, in this case) has the right to establish and maintain their own standards and that Gentiles like you and I do not have the right to walk into their synagogues and tell them to change.

      Do Messianic Jews have a right to walk into any of normative Judaism and change it? That is what I was asking you, you did not address that though.


      If we are to consider Messianic Judaism as a rather fledgling addition to normative Judaism (and yes, there are many difficulties with this view and MJ certainly has a long way to go), then I'd have to say that neither you nor I have the right to tell people who are halachically Jewish and Messianic that they don't have the right to develop and maintain their own halachah or consider the traditional sages to be authoritative.


      And what is the methodology for determining if Messianic Judaism is an addition to normative Judaism?

      The kicker comes in when Gentiles willingly choose to enter into a Messianic Jewish congregation or group (as opposed to One Law or Two House) and yet refuse to abide by the standards of that congregation. How is that sustainable or ethical?

      Well it isn't good, it is not good among even One Law or Christian groups. But this needs to be clarified, who is doing this, and who is letting these people in to begin with? Someone made that choice. Let me ask it another way, is it okay for a Christian Jew, like Michael Brown, to tell Messianic Judaism what to do?

      I wouldn't just walk into my local Baptist church and tell them I wanted to become a member but was unwilling to abide by their standards.

      Of course, but neither would they let you. You on the other hand, are blurring the lines between race and religion.

      Delete
    6. Zion, I'm not going to try and scroll up and down this discussion thread to find out if someone has sent me a query. Please scroll to the bottom and find my continued comments there.

      Thanks.

      Delete
  12. Tell this to Boaz and the FFOZ...They are not Judaism...Just a bunch of Gentiles Jew wannabes....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Tell this to Boaz and the FFOZ...They are not Judaism...Just a bunch of Gentiles Jew wannabes...."

      It's called an IDENTITY CRISIS. These DIT and BE groups are plagued with such.

      Delete
  13. Actually, I was talking with a few friends just last night about the whole "schizophrenic" thing and I actually think the door swings both ways. If groups like FFOZ and UMJC seem to not be consistent in applying how they conceive of Jewish halachah to their Gentile members, then how are we to consider movements like One Law? On the one hand, One Law groups borrow heavily from Talmudic Judaism in their use of the Hebrew prayers, tallitot, kippot, the structure of the modern synagogue worship services and so on (some even wanting to form their own Beit Din). On the other hand, many One Law groups tend to reject anything that involves the Jewish sages and the authority of the Talmud in any way shape or form.

    That seems a little bit "confused" as well, and remember I was part of One Law for about a decade, so I can speak from an insider's point of view.

    It appears as if everyone needs to tighten up their definitions and their practice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That is baloney, James. The Key word is AUTHORITY. The Talmud and the writing of the sages never were or are now hold any authoritative role in OL.

    It is by "Divine Invitation." and you know it.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan, every time anyone accepts how the Tanakh's chapters and verses are organized, they are accepting the authority of the Sages, who organized them in that manner. Every time a OL or TH person dons a tallit gadol, tallit katan, or kippah, they are accepting the halachah which was established by the Sages. Oral tradition and Talmud are the interface by which modern Jews perform the mitzvot. In adopting Jewish worship practices, OL and TH are, on some level, accepting some of the authority of the Talmudic sages, because the Sages established the halachah for wearing tallitot, kippot, and so on.

    It's inescapable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,

      It's like this: I'm in Virginia and Virginia has interpreted the Common Law differently than, say, New York. But if New York has developed case law that is unknown to Virginia, it is permissible for Virginia to look at that New York case law as a possible guide.

      In the same way, the One Law Messianic movement wants to use Rabbinic Tradition as a non-authoritative guide. We can respect tradition while maintaining a level of autonomy. Autonomy is a core value of every sect of Judaism (e.g. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc). We share this value with every branch of Judaism.

      Delete
    2. To be clear Peter, do you consider One Law to be a branch of Judaism?

      Delete
    3. Then we've reached a point of disagreement. I consider OL and TH to be forms of Christianity that borrow heavily from Jewish religious practice.

      OL and TH, for all their "Hebraic" trappings, share their core beliefs and values with Christianity. The belief that Jesus/Yeshua is the Son of God, born of a virgin, suffered and died for the sake of humanity, rose on the third day, ascended into Heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, is our High Priest in Heaven.

      Except for Messianic Judaism, all other forms of Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and so forth) reject any possibility that Jesus/Yeshua was and is the Messiah and deny that the Messiah must be a supernatural and Divine being.

      Obviously, you can believe and practice your faith as you wish since we all have the freedom to do so in this country, but putting on a kippah, tallit, laying tefillin, and praying with a siddur does not make you a Jew in terms of accepted halachah (that is, no other Jews are going to accept you as a Jew). Believe me, I'm married to a Jew and we frequently discuss these matters. As Gene once pointed out, my marriage is sort of "bilateral," but then I guess all Christian/Jewish intermarriages are.

      I hope we can disagree without personalizing the disagreement. One of the reasons I've refrained from commenting on your blog up until now was to avoid another argument. I've seen too many of them and they are not productive.

      Delete
    4. James,

      Yes, absolutely we can be civil. I welcome your perspective.

      Delete
  16. JaMes, I don't deny it. but from there to making rabbinic halacha authoritative is a long stretch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, I think that some OL congregations do make bits and pieces of the Talmud authoritative over their lives without even realizing it. The second an OL congregation chooses to separate milk and meat, in some manner, they have allowed that part of the Talmud to gain authority. The same as if an OL congregation accepts a specific manner of tying tzitzit. Sure, they haven't accepted all of the Talmud and if asked, they'd deny that the Talmud or the Rabbinic Sages have any authority, but once you accept certain Jewish "conventions," you are automatically acknowledging the "authority" of those who created those conventions.

      They just call it something else.

      Delete
  17. "To be clear Peter, do you consider One Law to be a branch of Judaism?"

    well, James, do you consider MJ a branch of Judaism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, what do you consider Peter's Two-House to be part of?

      Delete
    2. James, I would like to hear the answer to this question as well. Because I see hypocrisy in this already assuming what you might say.

      Delete
    3. Too late. I already answered that question regarding Messianic Judaism above in response to you, Zion. You seem to be stuck on the term "hypocrisy." Of course, you are free to disagree with my opinions, but how does it make me a hypocrite just because you think I'm wrong?

      I've already discussed my reservations about participating on this blog with Peter and so far, our transactions have been fair and civil. I want to see if it's possible to continue this conversation, disagree (and we will disagree), and yet not descend into "name calling".

      Thanks.

      Delete
    4. So are you going to answer the question now?

      Delete
    5. I did. It's somewhere in this multilayered mess. It was in response to one of Zion's queries. Oh, I'll just tell you what I told him. Just because you demand that I respond doesn't mean I actually have to. Thanks.

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. I propose that Two-Housers become One-Housers--the One House being Yeshua's House. In Him, there are no longer two separate houses of Israel. Anything teaching other than unity is divisive. Will it be difficult for some Two-Housers? Yes. But they'll get there. Yeshua and the unity of His Body is all that matters now.

      Delete
    2. "I propose that Two-Housers become One-Housers--the One House being Yeshua's House."

      Peter, it's not what you call "it". Two-House Movement believes that Gentiles are part of the "lost" Tribes of Israel. This will not change by simply calling this "One House" (which is what Two-House Movement's founder and chief Batya Wooten already began doing, for the same reason as you: "We are a 'One House' movement!", she says these days).

      Is Dan OK and "Amen!" with simply renaming the Two-House Movement while keeping its core theology intact?

      Delete
    3. Gene,

      I assume that the reason Dan said "amen" to my previous comment was because it reflects a core doctrinal shift from Two-House teaching. Apparently, there are Two-Housers who advocate Two House teaching as a means of deriving one's identity. I completely disagree. Identity should be found in Yeshua alone, not in theoretical ancestry. Also, I'm proposing that such theorizing is divisive. It needs to end. Let Yeshua keep track of ancestry. We only need to take hold of Yeshua and follow Him and derive our identities from Him.

      Delete
    4. Amen, again!

      Our identity is in Messiah, not Judaism or Gentalism... At least if we believe Paul.

      Delete
    5. "it reflects a core doctrinal shift from Two-House teaching."

      So, Peter, you no longer believe that Gentile believers coming to faith somehow signifies the "re-unification of the Two Houses of Israel"? Because THAT'S the core of the false TH belief, and claiming physical ancestry is inseparable from it.

      Delete
    6. I never believed/taught that anyone could claim physical ancestry as the basis for being included in Yeshua's kahal. My only mistake was to theorize about eschatology--but I won't be doing that anymore.

      Delete
    7. "I never believed/taught that anyone could claim physical ancestry as the basis for being included in Yeshua's kahal."

      That's not what I asked. Does Gentile believers coming to faith somehow signify the "re-unification of the Two Houses of Israel", yes or no?

      "My only mistake was to theorize about eschatology--but I won't be doing that anymore."

      So, you still believe in TH (as defined in my question above), but simply don't want to talk about it. Is what happening today somehow part of the supposed reunification or you don't know if it (or won't say)?

      Delete
    8. Gene,

      Re: "Does Gentile believers coming to faith somehow signify the "re-unification of the Two Houses of Israel", yes or no?"

      This is where one would have to speculate/theorize. This is precisely what I no longer wish to do.

      Re: "So, you still believe in TH (as defined in my question above), but simply don't want to talk about it."

      TH is pluriform. But I'm removing myself from all of it on the basis that all forms of it require speculation, something counter-productive considering that many gentiles are suffering from identity-confusion. Identity should be unequivocally based on Yeshua.

      Re: "Is what happening today somehow part of the supposed reunification or you don't know if it (or won't say)?"

      One COULD speculate/theorize but this is wrong for the reasons listed above.

      Delete
    9. "TH is pluriform. But I'm removing myself from all of it on the basis that all forms of it require speculation, something counter-productive considering that many gentiles are suffering from identity-confusion. Identity should be unequivocally based on Yeshua."

      OK, I think we have a breakthrough, Peter! I am not gloating, I am happy.

      Delete
  19. Getting back to "Messianic halachah" or more accurately (as I see it), "One Law halachah," it seems what you're proposing Peter is to take a system of authoritative standards that have been constructed within normative Judaism over many centuries, lift it out of its Jewish context, place it within a somewhat related but essentially different religious arena (Christianity by way of One Law), and then adapt it for use by Gentile believers in Jesus/Yeshua within the OL religious realm.

    As involved as all that sounds, it probably isn't anything new. I don't doubt that elements of one religion have been integrated and adapted into other religions historically. The first one that pops into my head is how Scientology has integrated certain elements of Christianity into it's theology without embracing an actual Christian worldview for their "church". I'm sure people with a better knowledge of the history of religion can come up with other more appropriate examples.

    As I mentioned above, we live in a country where freedom of religious practice is allowed and our nation (assuming everyone reading this lives in the U.S.) contains a wide variety of religions and religious traditions.

    The standard argument against Gentiles adopting Jewish practices such as publicly wearing kippot and tallitot presented both by Messianic Judaism and more traditional Judaism is identity confusion. That is, Gentiles, even inadvertently, creating the impression that they are Jewish by dressing or acting in a manner typically associated with Jews. Rabbi Carl Kinbar made a very illuminating comment on my blog post for this morning (sorry if I'm "spamming") to this point.

    Given all this, we have to ask ourselves if it's acceptable for One Law Gentiles to dismiss the desires of religious Jews and to "muddy the waters" so to speak, regarding religious identity by purposefully adopting Jewish identity markers. Since I'm married to a Jew, the answer is incredibly obvious (it wasn't initially, but I managed to learn this lesson over time). My wife has a very acute sense of her Jewish identity and, in contrast, an awareness of my identity as a Christian (she still is a little confused why I would refrain from eating trief, at least in a public setting such as a restaurant, when I'm not obligated to do so). Like most spouses, I'm not going to go out of my way to cause my wife any offense and so use our relationship as a significant motivation for refraining from the vast majority of "Jewish practices."

    But most people don't share that unique perspective. Is there a way to address a Gentile's desires to obey at least some of the mitzvot and still remain sensitive and respectful of religious Jews?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,

      Re: "Is there a way to address a Gentile's desires to obey at least some of the mitzvot and still remain sensitive and respectful of religious Jews?"

      Yes, I truly believe so. In fact, this is the reason for systematizing One Law Messianic halachic principles. We should elevate gentile respect for legitimate traditions.

      Kinbar wrote on your blog the following: "I choose to believe that informed and reasonable people don’t intentionally adapt a manner of dress that will confuse them with another individual or a member of a family to which they do not belong. For example, Gentiles who don tefillin or wear the tallit katan or gadol are treating them as mitzvot which they may observe."

      He's way off. Gentiles ARE family. Yeshua is our Father. That makes us brothers.

      And his tactic of implying that anyone who disagrees with him is irrational...well, that smacks of authoritarianism. He belongs to the UMJC, yes?

      But I truly love the Bilateralists out there. My hope is that they will join us eventually. Of course, to do that, they'll have to overcome the inherent racism of bilateralism which is blatant racial segregation. But they are welcome to swim in our pool anytime.

      And, James, I don't know exactly what "spam" is but I welcome all perspectives and comments here. I won't censor anyone. Ever.

      Delete
    2. lift it out of its Jewish context, place it within a somewhat related but essentially different religious arena (Christianity by way of One Law)

      So in your view, when was Christianity invented, who created it, and where did it come from?

      I am still waiting to here your methodology for determining what is Christianity versus Judaism.

      The standard argument against Gentiles adopting Jewish practices such as publicly wearing kippot and tallitot presented both by Messianic Judaism and more traditional Judaism is identity confusion. That is, Gentiles, even inadvertently, creating the impression that they are Jewish by dressing or acting in a manner typically associated with Jews. Rabbi Carl Kinbar made a very illuminating comment on my blog post for this morning (sorry if I'm "spamming") to this point.

      Given all this, we have to ask ourselves if it's acceptable for One Law Gentiles to dismiss the desires of religious Jews and to "muddy the waters" so to speak, regarding religious identity by purposefully adopting Jewish identity markers.


      Do you think we should start by asking Derek Leman and Boaz Michael, why they are stealing Jewish identity and blurring the lines, creating confusion?

      Delete
    3. "He's way off. Gentiles ARE family. Yeshua is our Father. That makes us brothers."

      Peter, I LOVE the way R. Stuart Dauermann put it some time ago (I am paraphrasing): just because you are my brother does it give you the right to not only come into my house anytime you please but also to re-arrange my furniture to your liking?

      Delete
    4. "etting back to "Messianic halachah" or more accurately (as I see it), "One Law halachah," it seems what you're proposing Peter is to take a system of authoritative standards that have been constructed within normative Judaism over many centuries, lift it out of its Jewish context, place it within a somewhat related but essentially different religious arena (Christianity by way of One Law), and then adapt it for use by Gentile believers in Jesus/Yeshua within the OL religious realm."

      Isn't that exactly what Mainstream MJ does, with 90% Gentiles in their midst?

      There are two sides to the coin. signaling OL shows bias, but you know this already, right James?

      Delete
    5. Gene,

      This is classic rhetorical gamesmanship. How does establishing our own communal standards equate with interfering with other communities standards?

      And this is why I'd love to publicly debate any of these UMJC types. I'm one of the few people who can expose their rhetorical ploys and demonstrate the faultiness of their racist doctrines.

      Delete
    6. "UMJC types...demonstrate the faultiness of their racist doctrines. "

      Lovely...

      Delete
    7. "But true."

      An ugly libel (but Jews are used to libels).

      Delete
  20. "Is Dan OK and "Amen!" with simply renaming the Two-House Movement while keeping its core theology intact?"

    Not at all Gene, but I trust Peter to be honest. He is no Wooten....

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Do you think we should start by asking Derek Leman and Boaz Michael, why they are stealing Jewish identity and blurring the lines, creating confusion?"

    Love you Zion...And they complain about hypocrisy...

    ReplyDelete
  22. " Peter, I LOVE the way R. Stuart Dauermann put it some time ago (I am paraphrasing): just because you are my brother does it give you the right to not only come into my house anytime you please but also to re-arrange my furniture to your liking?"

    This coming from someone who did not allow Gentiles "brothers" into his congregation unless they were married to a Jew...He has no dogs in the hunt.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Peter: You said, "He's way off. Gentiles ARE family. Yeshua is our Father. That makes us brothers."

    Interestingly enough, Anglican Priest Andrew White (fascinating story..I encourage you to read it) also referred to Jews as the "older brother" to Christianity, but while he says the Shema and has taught his children to do so, I don't get the impression that he directly equates normative Christianity and Judaism as "identical twin brothers."

    Interestingly enough, although I consider Rabbi Kinbar an authority, I've never really considered his comments to me, public or private, as "authoritarianism" (and he's taken me to task more than once on some problem in my blog posts). Although I am married to a Jew, I can't truly know what it is to "feel" Jewish in a lived, experiental sense, so I rely on people like Carl and Gene to provide that perspective from the more conservative Messianic Jewish perspective (Dan gives me the Jewish viewpoint from the One Law perspective).

    "Of course, to do that, they'll have to overcome the inherent racism of bilateralism which is blatant racial segregation."

    My response to this is way too long to post here, but I did record it on this recent blog post.

    "And, James, I don't know exactly what "spam" is but I welcome all perspectives and comments here.

    In this case, I meant my posting links back to my own blog (such as the one just above), which could be considered a form of "spamming" or promoting my blog on your blog without your specific permission. Since I write a ridiculous amount on my own blog, sometimes it's just easier to refer back to something I've already created than to type it again here.

    @Zion: You said, "Do you think we should start by asking Derek Leman and Boaz Michael, why they are stealing Jewish identity and blurring the lines, creating confusion?"

    I had this conversation with my wife just last night and she doesn't consider Jews who are Messianic to be Jewish either. Of course, her reasons are probably different than yours since she thinks that any belief in Jesus as the Messiah is incompatible with Judaism and that Messianic Jews are really Christians.

    As far as Boaz Michael, I believe he discusses his personal history including his conversion to Judaism in depth on his own personal blog. As far as Derek Leman is concerned, we all know where to find him, so you can ask him directly about his conversion. I'd really like to avoid talking about people who aren't here since it seems less than ethical.

    "I am still waiting to here your methodology for determining what is Christianity versus Judaism."

    I suppose you could start by setting aside your rather demanding "tone" since nothing in life says I have to respond to you on demand, Zion. It also seems rather ludicrous for me to define the differences between normative Judaism and Christianity in the 21st century, and it would take too long to go through the history of the schism that separated the two. I assume you can find books at your local library or resources on the web by using Google to provide those answers. So what are you really asking of me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you could start by setting aside your rather demanding "tone" since nothing in life says I have to respond to you on demand, Zion. It also seems rather ludicrous for me to define the differences between normative Judaism and Christianity in the 21st century, and it would take too long to go through the history of the schism that separated the two. I assume you can find books at your local library or resources on the web by using Google to provide those answers. So what are you really asking of me?"

      You made a claim that OL was simply Christianity and BE and DIT is a form of Judaism. The question was simple, and I wanted to ask how you came to such conclusions. Did you make them up in your mind, is there a sound reasoning to such claims? Etc, it is not much to ask, since it is at the very foundation of how your interpretation flows. I now know following your responses below that there is no method to your conclusions, it is simply something you believe. That is all I wanted to verify.

      Delete
    2. I had this conversation with my wife just last night and she doesn't consider Jews who are Messianic to be Jewish either. Of course, her reasons are probably different than yours since she thinks that any belief in Jesus as the Messiah is incompatible with Judaism and that Messianic Jews are really Christians.

      Since normative Judaism would not accept these gentiles(Derek or Boaz) keeping Jewish traditional signs, would it be best for them to follow the example of not blurring that distinction? Because, as of right now, you are contradicting your own view points.

      Delete
  24. "As far as Boaz Michael, I believe he discusses his personal history including his conversion to Judaism in depth on his own personal blog. As far as Derek Leman is concerned, we all know where to find him, so you can ask him directly about his conversion. I'd really like to avoid talking about people who aren't here since it seems less than ethical. "

    Then, stop making hypocritical statements...what is good for the goose is good for the gender...

    I am amused to see every time you are been pushed back you are turning to miss goody two shoes.....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan, what are you talking about? I don't want to talk about Boaz and Derek behind their backs so I'm both miss goody two shoes and a hypocrite? How am I a hypocrite? I don't use Jewish worship practices but acknowledge that other Gentiles are free to do so. I only say that some Jews might take exception to the "identity confusion" involved. I'm hardly the source of that identity confusion myself since I gave up any worship behaviors that are specifically Jewish, nor is Gene who is Jewish and does practice Judaism according to Orthodox halachah. I can talk about him because he visits this discussion thread and can read what is being said about him.

    I'm sorry that my attempting to maintain a certain amount of civility in an otherwise adversarial environment doesn't agree with you, Dan. Why do all these disagreements have to turn into fights? Why the overt emotionalism? Isn't it possible to have even one such conversation and maintain an adult level of interaction?

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Zion:

    You said, It is groups who claim it is authoritative, then point their fingers at others for trying to change it, and yet they themselves are not even keeping it... that is hypocrisy.

    Finally, someone states what this "hypocrisy" is supposed to be all about. Now I have something I can respond to.

    OK, let me see if I can get this straight. You are accusing groups like UMJC and FFOZ of stating that the Talmud is authoritative within Messianic Judaism. Further, you are saying that these groups register some sort of complaint when others, presumably Gentile One Law folks, take the Talmud, declare it non-authoritative over their lives (which is correct..it isn't), and adapt it for their specific purposes. Finally, you are saying that said-groups are guilty of hypocrisy because they don't adhere to all of the rulings of the Talmud with perfect fidelity. Correct?

    Really, this could be a blog post of its very own.

    I don't belong to either of these groups but I'll do my best to render a personal opinion. I can't promise this is how they'd answer but you seem to want something out of me so I'll do my best to satisfy you with a response. I don't promise that you'll actually be satisfied, however.

    Do Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews all apply the Talmud identically? No, of course not. Each form of normative religious Judaism applies the Talmud according to whatever Rabbinic authority they respond to (Gene could probably answer all this better than I can). I know for a fact that my local Reform shul has a Ritual Committee that determines how to interpret and respond to halachah, so their perspective is quite a bit different than the Chabad shul which would adhere to a much more conservative interpretation of the Talmud.

    On this basis, I would have to say that Messianic Judaism, assuming we consider it a Judaism, has the same right to interpret and adapt the Talmud for the requirements of their congregations. How all this works in detail depends on the congregations and umbrella groups involved.

    I mentioned somewhere else in this set of comments that the main problem as I understand it, from a Jewish point of view, is when Gentiles (me and thee, for instance) behave as if we are Jewish in a public venue (who cares how we act in private). If you want to take some Talmudic principle (and there are many good ones) and adapt it to your personal life, I don't think anyone is going to complain. If Peter wants to take Talmudic principles and adapt them for himself or a congregation and call them guidelines, he's not doing more or less what anyone in Judaism including Messianic Judaism is doing. However, if this results in a group of Gentiles publicly behaving in a way that results in others believing they're Jewish, that seems to be an issue, both with Messianic and more traditional Jews.

    End of part 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Peter wants to take Talmudic principles and adapt them for himself or a congregation and call them guidelines, he's not doing more or less what anyone in Judaism including Messianic Judaism is doing. However, if this results in a group of Gentiles publicly behaving in a way that results in others believing they're Jewish, that seems to be an issue, both with Messianic and more traditional Jews.

      Oh you mean like Derek Leman and Boaz Michael?

      Delete
  27. Start of part 2...sorry, but this got really long.

    Let's take a brief look at the "hypocrisy" thing. From an outsider's point of view, the Talmud as a whole appears to be an inflexible set of absolute standards that all religious Jews must follow and if they don't, they're at best inconsistent and at worst hypocrites (assuming they say that all of the rulings must be obeyed rigidly and yet they fail to do so). On the other hand, for example, only the Orthodox men wear payot in response to that portion of Talmud. I've never met a Reform Jew who does, and yet they both are part of normative religious Judaism. I don't know if that makes the Reform Jew a hypocrite or if it just means the form of religious Judaism he practices does not observe that particular Talmudic ruling or interpretation.

    (In fact, the Talmud is an extremely dynamic body of work and Rabbis throughout the centuries have been discussing and adapting it to meet the needs of particular communities at different periods of time. Even today, Rabbis in the different Judaisms continue to debate, rule, and argue regarding halachah and its proper application.)

    I can see a need for Messianic Judaism with a very tiny minority Jewish population, to continue to grow and develop as a Judaism so that Jews who are disciples of the Messiah can have a fully Jewish religious community expression. As the actual Jewish portion of the movement grows and develops, so will it's application of halachah within a Messianic context and as it manages relationships between Messianic Jews and the Gentiles who are attached to the movement.

    I don't know if that answers your question but that's the best I can do off the cuff.

    I know you asked a bunch of other questions, but this comment is really too long as it is. I suppose I or someone will just have to write a blog asking the question "Is Messianic Judaism a true Judaism?" I'm not currently writing a Master's Thesis, so I don't have the time or background to develop a methodology to make a scientific determination. Since you brought up the term, perhaps you could share your research on the matter.

    Thanks, Zion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. James, you really don't understand what we are talking about, do you? If it would be someone else (let's say, Gene) I would have thought that you are trying to be coy, but I know your heart.

    So, here is the deal: On one side we have the UMJC with their insistence fro gentiles to abstain from everything that is "Jewish" (according to their interpretation). On the other side you have FFOZ (which is really now on the same side of the UMJC), A gentile organization, comprised of Gentiles (less one Jew, and one who masquerades as a Jew)Who are freely engaging in all things "Jewish" as defined by the UMJC, and you wants us to refrain from calling them hypocrites?

    ReplyDelete
  29. So Dan, you're saying that because the UMJC proposes that no Gentiles participate in any of the Jewish worship activities but FFOZ says they are permissible, at least up to a point that one, the other or both are hypocrites?

    Really, as you can probably tell, I'm investing a significant amount of time and energy to see the points that are being made and try to respond, but that one came out of left field, Dan. Perhaps it's because I don't know anything about the UMJC.

    But are you making an assumption that FFOZ and UMJC are completely aligned? Couldn't they have differences of perspective in some areas?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I do not make any assumptions. I am only bringing out the hypocrisy of the UMJC and other messianic who run to attack the OL people, but somehow are blind to FFOZ's practices...I wonder why? They did not have any problem to attack FFOZ before the infamous switch.....Derek and Boaz became strange bedfellows, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  31. @James

    Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

    Summary of what I am reading in James arguments:

    The problem is One Law gentiles who might end up adopting some of the traditional practices of Judaism, and thus might confuse people that they are Jewish, even though One Law Gentiles will gladly speak up for being gentile and not a Jew. While fake Jews, such as found in DIT and BE following what they pick and choose as authoritative from the Talmud, while claiming to be Jews when they are not, yet this is not an issue.

    Does anyone else see a problem here?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh you mean like Derek Leman and Boaz Michael?

    It's interesting how when push comes to shove, the conversation moves away from concepts and principles and focuses on personalities.

    Peter, this is one of the reasons why participating in conversations on your blog is a problem and why I sometimes find it necessary to manage conversations on mine. The ability to avoid personalizing disagreements isn't possible for some folks.

    I may be back if future blogs here turn toward how the majority of Christians in the world are viewed and treated by OL, which I've been discussing recently.

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, I used people we both knew, in order to understand your message, of course my point, was only to show the hypocrisy in what you are saying, because you would have to say it about the examples I gave. And that would throw a wrench in the message you are proclaiming or even what they claim as well, this is the hypocrisy being exposed. It is no different than you making a claim against OL.

      In the end, I took something from this conversation, that I never saw before, and it is that these groups of BE or DIT, tend to put Jewish Distinction first, so Yeshua takes a back seat. You should write a blog about it titled and maybe title it "Does Yeshua Matter?"

      Delete
  33. James,

    You don't want to feel the heat, then get out of the kitchen. No one signed here to discuss only what you want to talk about.

    The majority of Christians in the world are not treated better by mainstream MJ. They are the one who tell them to stay in the Churches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, let me get this right: you claim that Messianic Jews abuse Christians by telling them it's OK for them to remain Christians and to continue worshiping in their churches? Wow, what incontrovertible logic!

      Delete
    2. I am pretty sure, he is saying MJ would not accept them in their circles, thus stay away (in your churches).

      Delete
    3. Zion, as Dan claimed before, the Messianic Jewish movement is "90% Gentile". So he can't possible mean that Messianic Jews do "not accept them in their circles" since they obviously DO accept. So, logically, he must have meant what I thought he did - Messianic Jews are OK with Christians remaining who they are and Messianic Jews are OK with Christians worshiping in churches but Dan is not OK with that since Christians and churches are "too pagan" to accept as fellow believers for him and his fellow Hebrew Roots devotees.

      Delete
    4. Zion, as Dan claimed before, the Messianic Jewish movement is "90% Gentile". So he can't possible mean that Messianic Jews do "not accept them in their circles" since they obviously DO accept. So, logically, he must have meant what I thought he did - Messianic Jews are OK with Christians remaining who they are and Messianic Jews are OK with Christians worshiping in churches but Dan is not OK with that since Christians and churches are "too pagan" to accept as fellow believers for him and his fellow Hebrew Roots devotees.

      When did MJ start accepting gentiles as equal members Gene? Because I never got the update. Do you take on gentile members at your congregation? Dan is correct, unless previous information has changed, it would be a miracle, please inform!

      Delete
    5. "When did MJ start accepting gentiles as equal members Gene?"

      Most of MJ congregations accept their Christian brothers and sisters as full members. A few, especially those located in the midst of a larger Jewish community, rightly (in my opinion) seeking to preserve the Jewish nature of their Messianic Jewish community, accept them either as associate members or welcome them as honored guests.

      However, OL/TH promoters' labeling Christians and churches as "pagan", lawless and tainted pales by comparison any supposed "discrimination" toward non-Jewish believers that comes from any Messianic Jewish entity.

      Delete
    6. "However, OL/TH promoters' labeling Christians and churches as "pagan", lawless and tainted pales by comparison any supposed "discrimination" toward non-Jewish believers that comes from any Messianic Jewish entity."

      Prove it....Talk is cheap...And why are you mixing "Christians" with "Gentiles?" why don't you start counting how many MJ congregation identify themselves as "Christians?"

      You better start cleaning your house before you attack others.....

      Delete
    7. Yup, prove it.

      Christians = Gentiles, because people like Gene confuse religion with race.

      Delete
  34. Thank you gene for helping me to expose the hypocrisy of MJ.

    Do you think we forgot the infamous "definition of Messianic Judaism" written by Resnik and his gang?

    How about kinzer and his book? How about Dauermann who only let Gentiles who are intermarried to his congregation?

    How many of the 90% gentiles in MJ congregations are allowed to make alyah LaTorah? Equal you say?...

    who are you trying to kid, Gene?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people who do not know any better, of course.

      Delete
  35. Unfortunately, the Hebrew Roots (One Law) movement has become the movement of hate. Hate toward Christians and churches by labeling them as pagan and lawless, hate toward Jews through derision of rabbis, Judaism, sages, mocking of Jewish customs, ridicule of sacred Jewish writings, hate toward Messianic Jews, their teachers and organizations (see Dan and Zion above for a ready example), hate toward Gentiles who do not identify with One-Law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a little something you know nothing of, chew on it.

      I participate in both my local Christian and Jewish community, I hate neither and I support both.

      You need to makeup a new hate theory.

      Delete
    2. Gene,

      You forgot to add that we also hate our parents...That would have completed your Cinderella fantasy...

      Delete
    3. "You need to makeup a new hate theory. "

      Zion, I can cite example after example of the types of hatred that I described above coming from folks associated with OL. You could probably do the same. You using yourself as an example does nothing to counter the overall trends witnessed by anyone with half of one eye opened.

      Delete
    4. "You forgot to add that we also hate our parents...That would have completed your Cinderella fantasy..."

      You do hate your forefathers. How else can one explain you saying something as outrageous as the following: "Between the Judaism of 2000 years ago and today's traditional Judaism, there is no connection or similarity."

      Delete
    5. Gene,

      Are you really that dense? Or you just like to make waves?

      Would you like a list of quotes from the 'authoritative Rabbinic" writings of hatred toward Gentiles and Christians?

      You better climb down from your high tree as soon as you can....

      Delete
    6. Dan, I remember the supposed quotes you once pulled...originally posted by a white supremacist group.

      Delete
    7. Then, Prove them wrong...you have never been able to do so, which only shows that you use any liable when you are desperate...

      Delete
    8. "Then, Prove them wrong...you have never been able to do so, which only shows that you use any liable when you are desperate..."

      How shameful it is for you to pull the "quotes" from an antisemitic KKK site and use those fake or out of context garbage to bash Jews over the head with!

      Delete
    9. "How shameful it is for you to pull the "quotes" from an antisemitic KKK site and use those fake or out of context garbage to bash Jews over the head with!"

      How do you know I pulled them from a KKK site and not from rabbinic writing?

      Can you prove that the Rabbis did not write them? Of course not, that is why you resort to liable...you have no credibility...

      Delete
  36. Almost missed this one: One Law devotees hate converts to Messianic Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Almost missed this one: One Law devotees hate converts to Messianic Judaism."

      No we don't. we just think that Derek and Boaz are stupid for violating 1 Cor. 7:17.

      And I love you Gene...You were once a blind Jew, like me, who converted to MJ, no?

      Delete
    2. Mainstream MJ hates OL and HR, and disregards gentile members...

      Now I see why you like playing this game...

      Delete
    3. Zion, the best answer you could come up with is "You do too!"? You think this is a game?

      Delete
    4. Of course it is a game, the very thing you claim of One Law, you do yourself, is that not some sort of a joke or do you not realize it?

      Delete
  37. "You do hate your forefathers. How else can one explain you saying something as outrageous as the following: "Between the Judaism of 2000 years ago and today's traditional Judaism, there is no connection or similarity."

    Sorry to disappoint you Gene, but the Rabbis of the halacha were not and are not my ancestors...

    Any more "stuff" you have to throw against the wall? So far nothing sticks....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Sorry to disappoint you Gene, but the Rabbis of the halacha were not and are not my ancestors..."

      That's the difference between you and I, Dan. If any of the sages are my ancestors (I doubt most Jews can pin point their exact ancestor over a thousand years back, unlike you, apparently), I would be honored.

      Delete
  38. "Mainstream MJ hates OL and HR'

    I always think of hatred as between persons, not doctrines, am I wrong? What I mean is, can't we hate a doctrine held by a person and still love the person? Does it make a difference?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Did everyone notice how Gene picks and chooses his replies? These are his tactics: avoid anything that might paint you into a corner...When pushed back, attack personally....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "avoid anything that might paint you into a corner"

      Hmm, is that a bad thing? Why would anyone want to paint themselves into a corner? That would not be very smart. I suppose such a thing would only occur when one's arguments don't have legs to stand on and when one doesn't care to weigh his words carefully and keep track of them (thinking others would not remember either). It's not magic.

      Delete
  40. How right you are. So far you have not addressed any of the topics we discussed, except of course bashing OL...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So far you have not addressed any of the topics we discussed, except of course bashing OL..."

      Dan, of course, I addressed "nothing". You refrain is as true as the ridiculous statement you made about Judaism:


      "Between the Judaism of 2000 years ago and today's traditional Judaism, there is no connection or similarity."

      Delete
  41. OK, Gene, Let's analyze it...

    First we have to define "Judaism"...

    Orthodox? Who elevate the writing of the Rabbis above the word of God?

    Lubavich? Who think the Rebbe is messiah?

    Reform? Who ordain gay rabbis and perform same sex marriages?

    Conservative? Who are sitting on the fence and don't know which way to turn?

    Reconstructionist? Who took God completely out of the picture?

    Which Judaism you think is just like Judaism of 2000 years a go?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, so now you are going from "there is no connection or similarity" to "just like"? You just upped the standards of legitimacy - according to you Judaism today must be identical (and PERFECT too!) to one practiced 2K years ago to be have a connection?

      So, I have a simple question for you. Can whatever faith that YOU practice today pass the same test of continuity that you thrust upon Judaism to establish its legitimacy?

      Delete
  42. "Dan, so now you are going from "there is no connection or similarity" to "just like"? "

    OK Gene, if this is all you can come up with, I will change from "Just like" to "no connection or similarity."

    Wow...You got me.....

    "So, I have a simple question for you. Can whatever faith that YOU practice today pass the same test of continuity that you thrust upon Judaism to establish its legitimacy?"

    Yes, it is called the Written Torah. Last time I checked Levit. 18:22 was still an abomination.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear readers, the above is a good - no, make it great - example of "painting yourself into a corner" through wild, preposterous and hypocritical claims.

      Delete
    2. Gene, wake me up when you decide to answer my questions about Judaism, will you?

      Delete
    3. Dan, I doubt that I am capable of awaking you out of your stupor.

      Delete
  43. Gene, A clear display what your crazy arguments do to people...we all fall asleep when you are on.....

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gene, tonight at shule make sure you bring no-dose for the people....LOL!

    ReplyDelete