Monday, March 4, 2013

Derek Leman Appalled That Gentiles Are Stealing Shabbat

That's right.  Derek Leman (the Gentile) is appalled that Gentiles are stealing Shabbat.  (I don't get this guy).  But since he is the hero of the largest Messianic organization (UMJC) we are now forced to discuss this craziness. 

First, here's the link to his post:  CLICK HERE FOR LINK

Second, let's hear some uncensored thoughts about this pitiful post.  Oh, and tell me what you think about his original take on Isaiah 56 (I say "original" because it goes against the traditional Jewish interpretation of that passage, that Isaiah 56 describes the future Messianic Era).

92 comments:

  1. "I am not sure how Rob Roy or One Law in general handles the former differences, such as Exodus 31:13 or Exodus 12:48 or Deuteronomy 14:21. I would guess that former differences are erased and now Christians and Jesus-believeing Gentiles are to live according to Israel’s covenant and way of life." Rabbi Derek Leman, UMJC

    You can find out how one person who is One Torah handles these text. Follow these links:

    Exo 31 -- http://www.torahresource.com/Parashpdfs/69CommentsTR.pdf

    Exo 12 -- http://www.torahresource.com/Parashpdfs/54CommentsTR.pdf

    Deut 14 -- http://www.torahresource.com/Parashpdfs/136CommentsTR.pdf

    RDL-UMJC doesn't need to guess unless he is just unwilling to read what other people actually teach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the links, I will read them over!

      Delete
    2. Yes, thank you, brother. Will read them later when I have time. I love the torahresource.com site. Those guys are fellow warriors.

      Delete
  2. "This is also a view rejected by Messianic Judaism (UMJC and MJAA) and Judaism and Christianity. " RDL-UMJC

    What more needs to be said ;-)

    What does this statement actually say? Do individual leaders of every UMJC and MJAA congregation agree with everything their leadership teaches? Is this a membership requirement? Maybe you have to sign a statement that you reject all One-Law, Hebrew Roots, and Two-House ideas in order to be a member of official MJ on planet earth....

    or maybe you just have to agree to this if you want to convert and become a Rabbi with them...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said, but also consider the contradiction of terms here.

      "This is also a view rejected by Messianic Judaism (UMJC and MJAA) and Judaism and Christianity. " RDL-UMJC

      First this seems he is making an appeal to hopefully give more credit to his claims, but there is problem here is that this same appeal would backfire on him concerning many of his other beliefs in fact maybe even majority.

      Lets stay consistent with his sources...

      Who among them would accept Derek Leman as a convert to Judaism.

      His conversion is and would be rejected by Christianity, Judaism and majority of Messianic Judaism...

      Hows that for credibility.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point! The whole thing stinks of political campaigning. With an attempt to make Messianic Judiasm=UMJC and MJAA.

      I feel like it is all a marketing device and an attempt to have something recognized as true just because you say it often enough....

      Delete
  3. One more link for those not too busy to read...
    http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/UnityOfTorah.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeshua said: "The Shabbat is made for man, not man for the Shabbat."

    He did not say the Shabbat is made for the Jew...

    I think Derek, needs to read this and then go uncircumcise himself.......LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

    He that saith, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

    But whoso keeps his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him...."

    How can I be in Messiah and not keep his commandments. Such deception by evil men....to say "don't keep the commandments" they are not for you.

    What? Are we supposed to break his commandments and yet LIVE IN HIM?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All we can do is pray for him. You know what they say about too much learning (Acts 26:24). Sad but true.

      Delete
  6. "Another is the One Law or Hebrew Roots “Sabbath is God’s universal commandment” belief. Both are wrong. Both groups will typically see an article like this, read only bit here and bit there, try not to let their paradigm be challenged, and go away unchanged." RDL-UMJC

    Go away unchanged!!!! This guy is unbelievable! He is one to speak!!!!

    Of course he doesn't read those he says are wrong. He just declare it so.
    Reminds me of Pharoah in the movie version of the 10 commandments. "So let it be written, so let it be done." Except for RDL-UMJC it would be "So let me say it, so let it be so."

    Oh that we could be set free from the likes of RDL-UMJC. Oh wait we can be... we just have to start ignoring him. At least until he has something useful to say.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I probably need to just cool it on commenting on his blog. I feel like every time we discuss something in the comments, we provoke him to post stuff like the Sabbath post you liked to above Peter. ::sigh::

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can imagine Shammai and Hillel as bloggers experiencing this kind of frustration with each other's posts. : )

      Delete
  8. Wow, Derekle Man makes ancient Rome seem anti-revisionist! His views on Sabbath are so misguided. But his latest boondoggle on Creation (from a Messianic Judaism perspective?) is lifted straight from a Kabbalist's book from the 1700s. I didn't notice from his picture; is he wearing a red string around his wrist? I wonder if he knows Madonna? This guy needs some serious prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Phillip Hawley:

    Which point about Creation did you find me to be wrong about in the blog article you refer to?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derek,

    How about you were created as a goy? And you violate 1 Cor.17-19?

    How come you never explained this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has nothing to do with the question I asked Phillip, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You still avoiding the issue, don't you? Telling.....

    ReplyDelete
  13. @RDL-UMJC,
    It might be that you choose a kabbalist as the source of your Messianic Jewish theology on creation...

    Just guessing though...

    ;-)

    I wonder if when we read a kabbalist we should seek to understand what his words meant to him in his historical time or if we can just read modern definitions into the words and make them mean whatever we want....

    Your little summaries and quotes...have you read and studied this work or does it just make for good "blog fodder?"

    What is your position on Kabbalah? Should we use it as a source of cleaving to God? Is it from the Spirit of God or from some other spirit?

    I think it is fair to ask these questions...

    ReplyDelete
  14. @RDL-UMJC...I searched your blogs and couldn't find anywhere you stated you position on Kabbalah... Did find this one thing from you though...

    "I myself have read very little Jewish mysticism and kabbalah and so forth."-RDL-UMJC 19 Jun 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just to allow this bunny trail to continue a bit longer...

    FFOZ stated position:
    "Let us make this clear: First Fruits of Zion does not by any means endorse Kabbalah or encourage anyone
    to study it. Rather, it is more fruitful to focus on the basics of Scripture and its plain meaning in context. The concepts laid out in Kabbalistic texts are by and large not relevant to most individuals in the Messianic Movement and have potential to be mishandled. Few have a sufficient frame of reference to understand it in a proper context. Kabbalah has never been widely and publicly studied in Judaism, and for good reason."

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...while doing some reading on Derek's blog (not ignoring him and seeking to find something useful) I stumbled upon this statement:

    "I feel it is inappropriate for a Gentile to be a rabbi." -RDL-UMJC Sep 4th, 2007.

    ...of course this was on a post explaining why he converted...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. further from the same post ...
      "Conversion is about joining the family of Israel, not changing religions." Sep 4th, 2007 RDL-UMJC-MJRC

      "Tirzah said:"In like manner, how effective is a person who has absolutely NO familial connection to the Jewish people at all (and I’m not talking about faith here) in leading a ministry to the unique needs of Messianic Jews?"
      (RDL replied...of course he was just DL at the time)
      You are nothing if not ruthlessly correct in asking this. It is why conversion is so important. I cannot defend my sense of calling to you. I cannot prove to you that it is legitimate at all for me, born a non-Jew, to lead a Messianic congregation." RDL-UMJC-MJRC

      one final quote:
      "Jewishness is more than a cultural expression. It is a God-given identity, a covenantal obligation, and a crucial part of God’s plan to redeem this world." RDL-UMJC-MJRC

      @Dan -- what identity did God give Derek?
      What identity has Derek and others "given" to him? Whom should we listen to God or man?

      Understanding RDL-UMJC-MJRC is not hard if one just reads what he writes....

      Delete
  17. I just figured something out!

    RDL-UMJC-MJRC is really Crypto-One-Law.

    He is unconsciously gentile (in his conscious world he is Jewish) and affirms that he is obligated to the whole Torah just as the same as his Jewish brothers and sisters in the Messiah. In his conscious world this doesn't in anyway diminish naturally born Jewish people. But in the hidden, unconscious world are Jewish people being secretly replaced by him?



    ReplyDelete
  18. Ok, one last string. I will post this in a few parts...Part 1:

    RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL said on Dec 24th, 2007 (in his pre-rabbi and pre-Jewish consciousness)

    "Six and a half years ago..." (that would be around the year 2000)"..., I was nothing more than a dispensationalist Christian, a Christian who loves Israel and wants to see Jewish people coming to faith in Yeshua. I did not understand Judaism. I thought of it as a false religion, much like Luther did in the recent posts about Luther’s struggle. I thought of Jewish traditions as a sort of window dressing to make our services “cool” and “Jewish relevant.” It was a big step for me when I learned how to chant Kaddish."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Part 2:

    RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL said on Dec 24th, 2007 (in his pre-rabbi and pre-Jewish consciousness)
    "...Anyway, back to that time six and a half years ago, when I started a little Messianic congregation from nothing. I didn’t know what I was doing. Thank God, I believed Israel had a place in God’s plan. But I knew little else. Judaism was foreign to me. So naturally I felt qualified to start a Messianic Jewish congregation!

    I came into the UMJC (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, see umjc.net) kicking and screaming. These people were hostile to some things that I thought were central to Messianic Jewish life. I used to think standing on a street corner and handing out pamphlets was a Messianic sacrament. I proudly wore a “Jews for Jesus” shirt at my first UMJC conference. I thought one rabbi in particular was going to punch me!"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Part 3:

    RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL said on Dec 24th, 2007 (in his pre-rabbi and pre-Jewish consciousness)
    "...I got to know a group of men I completely mistrusted. They turned things upside down for me. They seemed to have all the wrong values. And, to top all that off, they got up early and had a minyan (saying the morning prayers of Judaism) each morning. I thought they were showing off their ability with Hebrew and their knowledge of Judaism. I disdained them.
    For some weird reason I stayed. I began to morph. Judaism, as I learned it, was not what I thought it was. The prayers of the Siddur converted me to Judaism. More and more I learned that Messianic Judaism was not Jewish Christianity, but a Judaism."

    So...As I read this I see some hot tempered engineering student who thought he knew everything...then he met a bunch of people who took him in as family...but yet he wasn't really family. For them he would never be a legitimate leader of a Messianic congregation. In his heart he must have known that... To be fully accepted by them he would have to convert or resign his position as a leader in a Messianic Jewish congregation.

    It seems to make sense, what does everyone else here think?

    Of course RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COl you are free to comment also...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I got to know a group of men I completely mistrusted...I disdained them."

      Maybe someday he will change and have the same view of the rest of us here. I am not holding my breath but such a miracle could happen.

      Delete
  21. From my old blog:

    http://fllowheirs.blogspot.com/2012/02/truth-will-set-you-free.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. And this:

    http://fllowheirs.blogspot.com/2011/01/and-convert-shall-lead-them-part-ii.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. And also this:

    http://fllowheirs.blogspot.com/2011/01/hypocrisy.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. I feel like I need to Mikvah... I decided to read a little of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (aka Ramchal) seeing that Derek is asking what is wrong with his blog post statements...

    First I find this statement on the web:

    “138 Openings of Wisdom was written by Ramchal as the final step on a ladder of initiation into the kabbalistic wisdom that starts with Derekh HaShem ("The Way of G-d") and Da'as Tevunos ("The Knowing Heart"). Those embarking on the study of Kabbalah are advised to study these works first.”

    Then I decide… ok so what is the 138 Opening book all about…Here are the opening statements… Rachmal writes:

    “The oneness of Eyn Sof - He who has "No End", blessed be He - lies in the fact that only His Will exists, and no other will exists except through Him. Therefore He alone is in control and not any other will. The entire structure is built on this foundation.
    God's supreme unity is the foundation of faith and the root of wisdom. Accordingly, this is what must be explained first. For the entire Wisdom of Truth (Chochmat Ha-Emet, the Kabbalah) comes only to demonstrate the truth of Faith ( Emunah).”

    Derek write, “The purpose of this series is to be a resource for educating disciples.”

    So when Derek starts off with “Good is God’s own essence: Good is not something outside of God, but is God’s intrinsic nature. As Luzzato says “God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to him.”

    For Rachmal “God’s own essence” is the Eyn Sof. And for Rachmal the “Wisdom of Truth” is “the Kabbalah” and it comes to demonstrate the truth of Faith.

    Is RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL hoping to initiate people into “kabbalistic wisdom” or is he just ignoring the sources he is referencing and doing some form of modern contextualization?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmmm typo... It's Ramchal not Rachmal...my bad...

      Delete
  25. "Is RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL hoping to initiate people into “kabbalistic wisdom” or is he just ignoring the sources he is referencing and doing some form of modern contextualization?"

    He himself does not know what he is doing, but what else is new?

    ReplyDelete
  26. From Mark Kinzer:
    "Since the late fifteenth century, many Christian scholars have found a fertile ground of spiritual insight in Kabbalah. Some even championed what they called “Christian Kabbalah,” and awarded great respect to post-biblical Jewish texts in general and to the mystical texts in particular.

    Kabbalah remains repugnant to many evangelical Christians and rationalist Jews—and for good reasons. Jewish mysticism has often been associated with magic and superstition. The faddishness, superficiality, and syncretistic excesses of “pop Kabbalah” rightly disturb thoughtful people.

    Despite these liabilities, Jewish mysticism has much to teach us. We should take as our guides those who have esteemed the precious metal in the midst of the dross: Renaissance Christian scholars who learned from Kabbalah the value of the Jewish tradition as a whole; Jewish thinkers who obtained from Kabbalah a new respect for Christian theological tradition; and twentieth-century historians who have studied the mystical texts critically and sympathetically, and have found in them spiritual insight and a bridge to the mind of those Jews who first hailed the Nazarene as the human bearer of the divine Name."

    ReplyDelete
  27. More from Mark Kinzer:
    "We cannot help but hear in the words of the Zohar an echo of the Good News according to John: “I and the Father are one.” For the authors of the Zohar, this would be a polemical echo since they knew that Christians saw the Torah as superseded by Christ. These Jewish authors would be saying, “Torah reveals God to us and binds us to the Holy One not your Christ.”

    Yet, we hear the Zohar differently once we discard a supercessionist view of the Torah. Daniel Boyarin understands John in such a way: “For John . . . Jesus comes to fulfill the mission of Moses, not to displace it.” If John understands Yeshua in this way, what prevents us from accepting both John’s affirmation and that of the Zohar? Yeshua is one with the Father and the Torah is one with the Holy One, because John’s Logos is the antecedent heavenly Torah and Yeshua is the incarnation of that Torah.

    We may thus paraphrase Yeshua as follows: “I and the Father are one, for I and the Torah are one.”"


    ...hmmmm something seems wrong with this picture.

    Is this a case of "just because it's Jewish" we have to find a way to integrate and esteem it?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wonder if acceptance of this kind of thinking was part of RDL's "morphing" to his new consciousness....

    ReplyDelete
  29. On Feb 15,2010 RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL (in his pre-Jewish state-"conversion didn't come till a few months later) said:

    "I’m a novice when it comes to knowledge of kabbalah. An expert might easily shoot me down, but I’ve found some places of accommodated agreement with kabbalah. Some might argue that my understanding is not pure, and perhaps this is true, but three ideas in particular draw me. They are why I love Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age so much. I want to see the best of kabbalah appropriated in synthesis with biblical theology (Levertoff seeks common ground between the Fourth Gospel and chasidus)."

    Really! He wants "...to see the best of kabbalah appropriated in synthesis with biblical theology"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. from the same post "...I am drawn to the notion of supra-rational ways of knowing the inner being of God, with an understanding that God is present among us in lower forms of glory. The idea of God as ultimately Ein Sof (the unknowable) has truth to it. The idea of emanations or lower forms of his glory being present with us and among us is also true."

      So...one more title to add.
      RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL and Kindergarten-Kabbalist

      Delete
  30. Wow, a lot of verbiage, Anonymous. But so far your argument is nothing but "guilt by association" and "kabbalists have secret meanings behind the words they use."

    You have criticized my statement: Good is God’s own essence: Good is not something outside of God, but is God’s intrinsic nature. As Luzzato says “God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to him.”

    Does that mean, anonymous, you think "Good" is a principle higher than God to which he must submit?

    I actually am pretty good at theology. So I am not sure why you think you will be able to find fault in basic theological statements that I make. But if you find fault here, make your case. I'll be glad to dialogue. A concise answer would be nice as a typical work day for me is 10-12 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @RDL - Two questions really. Do you admire the spirituality of Kabbalist and hope to be like them?

    Do you still "want to see the best of kabbalah appropriated in synthesis with biblical theology"?

    I have had a lot of debates with Mormons in my life. I always remind myself that they believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. So, no matter what they say, I am reminded that their words are colored by him. Guilty by association...in that case I don't think the fallacy fits. I think it is appropriate to be suspicious of them and you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous:

    Well, looks like you admit that you find no fault with actual theological statements that I have written. So your contention that my beliefs are poisoned by some kind of dangerous kabbalism is so far without evidence. Let me know when I make a theological statement in the MJ Basic Beliefs series that you find fault with. Until then, you are merely insinuating non-existent errors in my theology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Derek, we are trying to tell you that for years, your whole fake "conversion" is an error in theology. It is time for you to come clean. Shall we hold our breath?

      Delete
    2. He can't...He would have to resign from his position as leader in his congregation...If he came clean and didn't step down his friends at the UMJC would not be accepting of him...
      It is too important for him.

      Oh, and from his own lips God has called him to convert. Who can argue with that.

      Delete
    3. It is ironic how the UMJC will accept him as Jewish but will not accept his so-called "conversion."

      A bunch of confused meshugenes.....

      Delete
  33. @RDL - "I actually am pretty good at theology."
    And humble too?

    Proverbs 27:2 Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL-KK
    "Well, looks like you admit that you find no fault with actual theological statements that I have written."

    What a grand statement! I planted fruit trees this year and hearing and obeying the commandments of Torah (even though I didn't plant them in the land & I am a gentile)... I have to water these things for 5 years before I can eat from them...And seeing there are no priest to give them to in the 4th year I'm not sure how I will handle that...maybe I'll give that years produce to the poor.

    If I have to wait 5 years to eat the fruit of these trees... surely RDL you can wait a while before you conclude their is no fruit on my trees.

    I bought your "Yeshua in Context" book (Kindle version) and am up to chapter 5 so far...

    ReplyDelete
  35. @RDL ""kabbalists have secret meanings behind the words they use."

    Actually there is nothing secret about their meanings. If you read them in their context their meaning is clear to see. You seem to think it is ok to take their words into your context. My quote from Kinzer was an example of how he even puts the words of the Zohar into scripture...through paraphrase. If you think this is a good way to do theology then I don't want anything to do with your theology.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL-KK
    I finished up through chapter 7 of Yeshua in Context.

    In chapter 7 in your story approach you didn’t mention anything about

    כִּי בֵיתִי בֵּית־תְּפִלָּה יִקָּרֵא לְכָל־הָעַמִּים

    Do you not think this was an insignificant point?
    Do you think the Temple was/is just for Israel or a place of prayer for all peoples?

    ReplyDelete
  37. @RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL-KK

    Nevermind - Collins says "Finally, the saying of v. 17 does not fit Jesus’ actions very well. The narrative description of Jesus’ actions does not emphasize the Gentiles or their relation to the temple. This lack is especially important since the outer court, where the actions probably took place, was not called the “Court of the Gentiles” in the time of Jesus and Mark.37"

    "Finally, the saying of v. 17 does not fit Jesus’ actions very well. The narrative description of Jesus’ actions does not emphasize the Gentiles or their relation to the temple. This lack is especially important since the outer court, where the actions probably took place, was not called the “Court of the Gentiles” in the time of Jesus and Mark.37(Josephus simply calls it “the open court” (το υπαιθρον) (Bell. 5.5.2 §192); Adela Yarbro Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” in eadem and Margaret M. Mitchell, eds., Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 45–61, esp. 46.)"

    Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia, P527-528

    So, that must mean that Gentiles would have to convert if they every wanted to go to the Temple - is that right? Seems to be what Collins is teaching.

    But is she really have "the best information" on the subject....? What makes her the best...or did you mean 'best fits your view?'
    Word Bible Commentary has an interesting parallel comparing Jer 7, Isa 56, and 1 Kings 8...
    Of course the alien and foreigner in all those verses is "properly understood" as a convert right ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. arrgggg!!! I wish there was someway to edit these...sorry about the double cut and paste...

      Delete
  38. Shalom All, I would reply to to the rhetorical mogul MC Derekle Man Bam Bam, but that wouldn't be fair. I posted in the comments section of his boon-blog-le repeatedly, supporting my remarks with scripture in context. But he repeatedly deleted them. So I have resolved not to directly respond to a fool that will not listen, but only argue; lest I too be taken for a fool. However, in regards to his questionable conversion, his theological perspective that integrates a system of Jewish mysticism (that he has admitted he doesn't understand) and his theosophical motives for retaining a position of congregational leadership for which he is unqualified (again, by his own admission and by the tenets of his favorite Alphabet soup organization), I can only resort to the '60s comedy team of Firesign Theater and sing a verse from 'How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all!' for appropriate answers. Poor Derekle. He guessed right. He should be in show business. He simply chose the wrong platform. He never told us if he knows Madonna... 8)

    ReplyDelete
  39. --Derek Leman is appalled that Gentiles are stealing Shabbat.--

    LOL!!

    *Derek Leman is appalled that Gentiles are attempting to walk as Yeshua walked (1 John 2:6)

    *Derek Leman is appalled that Gentiles are imitating Shaul, as he imitated Messiah (1 Corinthians 4:16, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Philippians 3:17)

    *Derek Leman is appalled because Gentiles are being taught that which Yeshua taught (Matthew 28:19-20).

    *Derek Leman is appalled that Gentiles would rather obey G-d than man (Acts 5:29)


    *Derek Leman is appalled that Gentile or Jew means nothing, but obeying the commandments is what counts (1 Corinthians 7:19).

    *Derek Leman is appalled that Gentiles are using all G-d inspired Scriptures for doctrine, correction, evidence, and for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)

    *Derek Leman is appalled that, according to Yeshua, him, the leadership of UMJC, MJAA, FFOZ et al will be least in the kingdom (Matthew 5:17-19).




    ReplyDelete
  40. I just read the link to Mr. Leman's blog.

    Apparently I, a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah, am still a Gentile in the flesh, called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made by hands. I am still separated from Messiah. I am still estranged from the commonwealth of Israel. I am still a stranger to the Covenants of promise. I do not have hope, and I am without God in the world. I have not been brought near by the blood of Messiah Yeshua. He is not our peace. He did not make both groups one. He did not destroy the dividing wall of separation. He did not abolish the enmity contained in ordinances, and did not establish one new man.


    Is this correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, that seems to be the obvious conclusion... but I will explain why, for someone who seeks validity in being part of God's covenant, not through Messiah, but through rabbinic conversion as Derek Leman does, he has to translate Ephesians 2 upside or on its head in order to uphold his own "validity"... So the only conclusion is that since he believes Rabbinic Conversion is valid, then Paul can't literally be saying that, it must mean something else... insert spiritualize the text to have no literal meaning, quite sad.

      Delete
    2. Holy smoke are you guys lame. Layman is against the world here and he more than holds his own. Benzvi, your disrespect is nauseating.

      Delete
  41. Wow! Lashon hara much? Shameful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If calling out a false teacher is lashon hara then Paul is guilty (it's not lashon hara by the way). Also, I seem to remember that Derek Leman has a certain "wall of weird" in which he calls out Hebrew Roots teachers by name.

      Use a double standard much? : )

      Delete
    2. Debating theology you believe to be wrong is not lashon hara. Telling a fellow Jew to go "uncircumcise himself" is, or branding him a deceiver because you disagree with him. A Jew's highest mandate is to love his neighbor and honor the image of G-d he bears. Can you honestly say this post reflects honorable disagreement?

      Delete
  42. There is a big difference between debating ideas - even very strongly - and attacking a person's character. You refer to him as a Gentile, discrediting his conversion. Don't you know it's shameful to remind a convert of their former identity? You reject his conversion because you don't recognize the authority of the Beit-Din that oversaw it. The Orthodox would not recognize a Conservative Beit-Din. The Conservative would not recognize a Reform Beit-Din. Are you Judge? Are there NO valid converts in your little world? You attack him personally, calling him a false teacher because you reject his conversion and therefore conclude he's a deceiver. You ignore the fact that his conversion was overseen by a Beit-Din. Maybe YOU don't recognize it, but that doesn't give you the right to call him a Gentile. The comments on these threads are even worse - referring to his genitalia and saying he should be uncircumcised. No, I don't double standard much. I can clearly see who debates ideas and who attacks character. If you disagree with his theology, yippy skippy. Debate him like a human being who bears the image of G-d.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Re: "You reject his conversion because you don't recognize the authority of the Beit-Din that oversaw it."

      A Beit-Din can't make you a Jew. Derek Leman is not ethnically Jewish. This means he is a Gentile.

      Delete
    2. I'll ask again. Do you believe you have honored Derek's dignity as one made in the image of G-d throughout this thread?

      Delete
    3. Did Paul honor the dignity of the man who struck him when Paul called him a "white-washed wall"? (Acts 23)

      Delete
    4. Are you likening yourself to Paul?

      Delete
    5. Just because we point out fake Jews or phony conversions, does not mean we are attacking someones character. Although, someone claiming to be something they are not, should speak volumes of their own character.

      The original post intent was to point out the irony of a Gentile posing as a Jew and saying gentiles are not to keep the Torah... See the catch-22...?

      Delete
    6. Only if I first acknowledge that you all have the authority to decide who is a Jew and who is not, and whose conversions are "legit" and whose are not. I guess you sit on a Beit-Din? Oh, wait, I forgot, a Beit-Din can't confer Jewish identity. Because you say they can't. So obviously they can't.

      Delete
    7. The answer is simple, would any Judaism accept his conversion? The answer is no. Would Israel the nation accept his conversion, no... Since Judaism and Israel does not count as authority, whose authority do you want?

      Delete
    8. Messianic Judaism would accept his conversion, yes. If you want to talk about Israel and Judaism as a whole, then no person who believes in Jesus is a Jew. Period. Including any and all of you here. So if you want to use Israel's definition, and non-Messianic Judaism as the only standard, then all of you turn in your Jew cards right now.

      Delete
    9. First of all, I am not a Jew... Dan Benzvi is a Jew.

      And you are wrong about Judaism's view towards Jews with other beliefs, whether that be a Buddhist Jew, a Muslim Jew or a Christian Jew, they just consider them apostates, but they are still considered Jews.

      Not even Messianic Judaism would accept his conversion, as majority of Messianic Judaism, including the UMJC, do not practice any form of "conversion".

      http://www.umjc.org/home-mainmenu-1/faqs-mainmenu-58/14-umjc-faq/21-does-the-umjc-practice-conversion

      But despite even Messianic Judaism, if Judaism does not recognize it, then it is disrespectful to Judaism to claim authority that Judaism never agreed too.

      I hope this helps...

      Delete
    10. The UMJC does not deny these conversions as valid. They said there is a Majority position and a Minority position, and they will not *promote* conversion. That is not the same as saying the UMJC unilaterally rejects such conversions. They are careful in what they say and do not say. You chose to focus on the first half of the page, and to ignore the second. The MJRC is comprised of some highly influential leaders in the UMJC, so your claim that they reject Derek's conversion is false. The MJRC oversaw it, and the UMJC offered him s'micha as a Rabbi after it was complete, so obviously they accepted his conversion. You can argue that the UMJC and MJRC are invalid authorities, but then we get back into who decides what around here . . .

      I stand by my previous statement. Judaism does not accept apostates as Jews.

      As for whether it is disrespectful to Judaism at large, you get into sticky territory there. Any form of Messianic Judaism could be construed as disrespectful to Judaism because Judaism at large denies the possibility of Messianic Jews being legitimate Jews. The question becomes whether there is an historical basis for the claims of Messianic Judaism being a legitimate Judaism. If you answer "yes," then you have opened the door to Messianic conversions and Messianic halacha, and Messianic everything, since they would then be a legitimate Judaism with the right to apply Jewish traditions to their needs as another denomination (like it was in the very beginning). The only way to completely shut the door on all of those things is to say "Judaism at large has all authority to self-define, and therefore Messianic Judaism does not exist." Then you are also accepting the Jewish position that Messianic Jews are not Jews unless they return to the true faith.

      Jews have never defined themselves as only an ethnicity, btw.

      I hope this helps . . .

      Delete
    11. It might also be helpful to keep in mind that the vote was taken in 1983. A lot of people's views have changed since then.

      Delete
    12. If the UMJC does not promote or practice, then you are dealing with a problem of legitimacy, but we are not only speaking on UMJC, also consider MJAA...

      And your view on Jews denying Jewish identity to Jews of different faiths is absurd. You probably read some extremist site... I am not saying it does not happen, but this is not the majority view.

      You have a faulty premise, jews being jews is not the issue, whether Yeshua fits inside of Judaism is the issue. If Judaism says no, then Messianic Judaism is violating the authority of Judaism to claim otherwise, which means Messianic Judaism has an issue with the authority of Judaism, making up their own authority. If Messianic Judaism can make their own authority. Then the claims on conversion according to Judaism is rendered invalid.

      Delete
    13. My premise was that tearing Derek Leman apart because a group of you have decided his conversion was invalid constitutes lashon hara. So, yeah, this is very much about who is a Jew, which apparently all of you have decided you are qualified to judge. If you accepted Derek's status as a Jew, then you would all have to resort to actually discussing the ideas he presents instead of attacking him personally.

      Delete
    14. My point was not based on what I thought personally, but what Judaism thought, as the very practice is part of Judaism for at least 2000 years. To disregard Judaism as the authority for conversion makes the conversion illegitimate, nothing more nothing less. It would be like rewriting Jewish practices, as you said. Whether you agree or that upsets you, does not deal with the facts. To embrace him as a Jew, is to ignore reality.

      Delete
  43. Anonymous, you know what your problem is? There is no mandate for conversion in the Written Torah...Find a more solid ground for attacking....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are confused as to who is attacking. Your theological stance does not justify lashon hara. I pointed that out, and the attacks turned toward me. Shocking!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      Was Paul committing lashon hara when he said that Demas was in love with the world? Was he committing lashon hara when, in front of everyone, he told Peter that he was acting like a Gentile?

      Let me know...

      Delete
    3. Are you likening yourself to Paul and Peter?

      Delete
    4. Ah, I see. You don't want to acknowledge my point. You just want to attack me by insinuating that I am arrogantly equating myself with Peter and Paul.

      But don't worry. This isn't Leman's blog where you would be deleted for disagreeing with the Blogger. Your comments are all welcome here--yes, even the attacks against my character.

      Delete
    5. Smooth operator! You disregarded my point with a question, and then accuse me of shiftiness for responding in kind. My point was definitely NOT character assassination. It was that if Paul and Peter (or Yeshua Himself) took people to task publicly and harshly, it was certainly the exception, not the rule. Also, it would have either been done from a place of maturity, wisdom, and with much fear and trembling, or else it would have been sinful. Obviously with Yeshua the sinful angle is not an option. But it certainly could be with Peter and Paul. There are statements in this and other threads that hardly seem to be crafted with fear and trembling. They have the appearance (at least) of evil. Only you can answer before G-d whether your behavior and words have been above reproach. The statements I have read here have caused me to cover my eyes in shame. So I cannot cast aspersions on you as a person, but I can relate the effect your words have had on me.
      Also, I cannot assassinate your character, any more than either of you are qualified to tell me "what my problem is." But neither are any of us qualified to stand in judgment of Derek's integrity, or his identity as Jew/Gentile, or to shame him by referring to his former life. You here are not the gatekeepers of who is a Jew and who is not, yet you seem to set yourselves in that position. So you unilaterally declare that Derek is a Gentile (ignoring thousands of years of Jewish history that accepts converts), and then you proceed to attack him based on your claim that he is a deceiver - because he doesn't hold to *your* rewriting of Jewish practice. You deny that is lashon hara. That must be your rewriting of Jewish definitions again. But I feel within myself that this conversation is going nowhere. I would be delighted if you proved me wrong.


      Delete
    6. Your questions are very simply answered above...

      Delete
    7. Did I ask a question?

      Delete
  44. "Also, it would have either been done from a place of maturity, wisdom, and with much fear and trembling, or else it would have been sinful."

    Hello, Miss goody two shoes...who qualified you to preach?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same authority who qualified you to decide who is a Jew and who is not.

      Delete
    2. Accept of course that as of now you cannot show us any Biblical proof that conversion makes someone Jewish... Can you?

      Delete
  45. "Just because we point out fake Jews or phony conversions, does not mean we are attacking someones character. Although, someone claiming to be something they are not, should speak volumes of their own character."

    Let alone someone who is afraid to put his own name up there, and hide under their desk with "Anonymous..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Reread this entire thread and see if there is any reason you can possibly think of why someone wouldn't want to give you all access to their personal information.

      Delete
    2. The quickest way to do that is to not come here and post nonsense...But I guess you have yet to figure this out....

      Delete
    3. One thing I do admire about Peter is that he allows people to have an opinion even if they choose to remain anonymous. Can't say the same thing about the other guys web site.

      Delete
  46. Excuse me, gentlemen, IMO the issue is this: if a person came out of a Gentile woman, they are in no position to, at a later date, convert to what the majority of Judaism considers a GENTILE faith and then exalt themselves over what they actually ARE. If his mother is a Gentile then he is a Gentile.

    Now - if he wants to be considered to be a Jewish person, then regardless of what UMJC or MJAA (whatever their acronym is) thinks, he must be considered Jewish by the rabbinical court in Israel as JEWISH - NOT by a bunch of folks who are themselves, though physically Jewish, considered to be apostates. The only Jews who ARE Jews within the Messianic Faith are those whose mother is considered Jewish. No Jewish mom? Then you're a Gentile like the rest of the grafted in.

    Just in case there is a response - I do not converse with phantoms. Shalom, all!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Aye, Aye.... Never a Truer Word Spoken !!!
    I experienced the same... Poor Derekle >>>>
    Righteous indignation, By their fruits ye shall know them!
    Vengeance is mine I will repay..
    & I will leave it @ that.
    Shalom aleichem...

    ReplyDelete