I was saddened to hear that Rudolph’s new book (the
so-called “Introduction to Messianic Judaism) contains the UMJC’s paper which
mischaracterizes the One-Law movement (CLICK HERE FOR LINK). So
I’ll respond briefly and invite Rudolph (we keep in touch via email) to respond
since that is only fair to allow him the opportunity to respond after I
completely crush his argument to smithereens and demonstrate how the UMJC paper
blatantly mischaracterizes the One Law position. Without further ado…
The UMJC paper bases its entire argument on the following
assertion:
“Only through circumcision can [a Gentile] be incorporated into the people of Israel and their Torah.”
Resnik and Juster support this conclusion by saying that
Acts 15 only binds the Gentiles to the Noahide laws:
“By the time of Yeshua, an interpretative tradition was developing concerning the requirements for Gentiles. These later became formulated as the Noahide laws, binding on all people and rooted in the covenant with Noah….As has been noted, [the fourfold decree in Acts 15 is] very similar to the Noahide laws.… The passage assumes a universal morality.”
In fact, the Noahide interpretation of the fourfold decree
has been thoroughly refuted by modern scholars:
“The similarities between the prohibitions and the Noahic precepts are not as close as they may seem at first glance. For example Genesis 9 has only one clear correspondence to the prohibitions (eating meat with blood in it). The only other command relates to murder, and while [haima] can be used as a metonymy for murder, the earlier examination of this term has shown that this meaning is unlikely. It is also problematic that [pniktos] does not occur in the Noachic precepts…as Wedderburn has noted, there is no evidence that the Noachic precepts were in use in the first century…Contextually the Noahic view seems difficult to sustain. For one thing, very little in the immediate context would bring Noah to the reader’s mind. The first mention of the prohibitions in Acts 15:20 makes reference to Moses, not Noah,” Savelle (see also Schnabel, 2012).
In reality, the terms used in the fourfold decree refer
specifically to pagan cultus (i.e. the pollutions involved in pagan temples of
that time):
Proctor: “ ‘Idol sacrifice’ (eidolothuton—15:29; 21:25) means meat eaten in a pgan temple in connection with a religious ceremony, ‘or at least in temple precincts where the god’s power and presence were thought to abide.’ The other word used for this term is ‘pollutions of idols’ (alisgemata ton eidolon—15:20), and the root alisgein consistently refers to food or drink in usage of the period (for example in the LXX of Dan. 1:8).”
Savelle: “In 15:29 and 21:25 the adjective [eidolothuton] replaces the phrase [alisgemata ton eidolon] of 15:20. The basic meaning of the term is ‘something offered to a cultic image/idol.’ This word is used seven times elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19; Rev. 2:14,20). In each of these passages the context involves food sacrificed to idols.”
Callan: “the content of the Noachian laws differs from that of the Apostolic Decree…[additionally the] prohibition of pnikton has no obvious counterpart in any of the Noachian laws.”
So, now that the UMJC’s case has been shown to be thoroughly
destabilized, let’s return to their fundamental assertion:
“Only through circumcision can [a Gentile] be incorporated into the people of Israel and their Torah.”
Rather than re-state the entire One-Law case, I’m going to
provide you the link to my previous post that summarizes the entire One-Law
case:
I'll send Rudolph an email now and we'll see if he responds. I'm guessing he won't respond but you never know.
Proverbs 18:1 He who separates himself seeks his own desire, he quarrels against all sound wisdom.
ReplyDeleteProverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.
Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.
...with that in mind, it would be wise to consider this response to Resnick's paper.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf
Thanks for the link!
DeleteAnonymous, is it you Garry?
DeleteSome yes but not all.
DeleteSome teaching on the so-called "Noachide laws."
ReplyDeletehttp://torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/NoachideETS2.pdf
I wrote a comment on Derek's blog, not expecting it to be posted but for him to consider... I wrote:
ReplyDeleteDerek wrote:
I find they sharpen our ability to articulate our belief and establish some priorities. One of mine, obviously, is that Jewish identity is eternal and should not be diluted by spin-offs of Christendom in which Gentiles start assuming pseudo-Israelite status.
Zion wrote:
When I read this, I imagined yourself saying this while looking into a mirror... :D
He emailed me in response with:
Derek said:
I know you know this, but my answer to your critique is simple. It rests on a practice of Judaism which you reject. I converted to Judaism according to halakha. One Lawers and Two Housers adopt a pseudo-Jewish identity with no respect for Judaism and Jewish identity. The difference is obvious. Your very objection to my conversion is a perfect example of anti-Judaism.
I brought this up because I wanted to point two major flaws in this reasoning.
1) I don't have a pseudo-Jewish identity, last time I checked I am a gentile, instead he has a pseudo-Jewish identity, because last time I checked, he is a gentile, just as Judaism would recognize him as and rightly so. I don't claim a fake Jewish identity like Derek, I claim my God given identity as a Gentile.
2) He concludes with the idea that because I have rejected a certain aspect of Judaism, that being conversion just as the Apostles did, then I am in essence, anti-Judaism... if we stay consistent with this claim, then so were the disciples, when they did not accept specific Halacha... So Derek considers the Apostles to be anti-Judaism.
Side note, Derek is not the only one to make ridiculous claims such as "your anti-Judaism" if you do not accept "this or that" halacha, I have encountered others as well, so just keep this in mind if someone throws out this baseless claim.
“Beth Immanuel exists for disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, for Jewish believers, for Gentile believers and for you. Beth Immanuel provides a venue of worship and a community of support for Jewish and Gentile believers alike. We are here for those drawn to practice Messianic Judaism--the historical mode of Christian faith. We are dedicated to teaching and living out the Jewish Roots of our faith in Messiah. We strive to identify with our Jewish heritage through the celebration of the Word of God, the Biblical Sabbath and Festivals and instruction of Scripture. In so doing, it is our goal to provide a place of fellowship and an atmosphere of spiritual growth for believers of every ethnicity.”
ReplyDeleteIs this group an example of “spin-offs of Christendom” or are they able to “pull-off” having Jews and Gentiles worshiping together and still keep identities in place? They say they practice Messianic Judaism, does that mean they submit to all ruling of the UMJC and MJAA? They do not hold to any One Law, Two House, Hebrew Roots, or other “off limits” ideas that I know of so does that mean they are ok? What if some of their leaders are not Jewish… do they then loose the “right” to say they practice Messianic Judaism?
By what standard do we establish what is and is not authentic? Not theoretical standards (like “solidarity with greater Israel” or “greater Judaism”) but actual standards? Who gets to decide?
I find nothing wrong with their statement of purpose and pray that God will bless them in their service of our Messiah.
With more to say,
Shalom,
Gary S.
P.S. As a statement of clarification. I neither intend to endorse or denounce the people or teaching of Beth Immanuel by my remarks above. My good words are specifically in regards to the statement I quoted and a sincere prayer that God would be glorified in all they do.
ReplyDeleteI don't want anyone to threaten my livelihood by saying "This will make a great blog post. Does your employer agree with your...stance" and start a blog post titled "TorahResource endorses Beth Emanuel."
With more to say,
Gary S.
typo--I should have said...
Delete"...and start a blog post titled "TorahResource endorses Beth Immanuel.""
Peter can you fix typos?
Note the difference here:
ReplyDeleteFounded in 1973, Ahavat Zion is a vibrant, warm and family-friendly community in West Los Angeles. We are inspired by a vision of Jewish life, renewed in Messiah, that is traditional, egalitarian, and engaging.
We exist:
To provide a spiritual home for those who are Jewish or intermarried;
To impart the holiness of Jewish life, renewed in Yeshua, from one generation to another; and
To welcome Jewish spiritual seekers, providing them with a safe place to engage with our conviction that Yeshua is the Messiah.
We are affiliated with the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) and the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council (MJRC).
"We exist to provide a spiritual home for those who are Jewish or intermarried..."
Notice, no Gentiles. They are not ashamed to be open about it.
Ahavat Zion used to be Stuart Dauermann's congregation.
I think it is clear that, identity is worth more for some, than the body of Messiah. Sad how that is.
Delete"I think it is clear that, identity is worth more for some, than the body of Messiah. Sad how that is."
DeleteZion... here's my personal order of relational priorities, those who are feel closest to, as a Jew and follower of Messiah:
1. G-d
2. Israel's King and Messiah
3. My immediate family (wife/kids, parents and relatives).
4. My extended family in Israel - all fellow Jews
5. Extended Family through Abraham through Messiah: Christians who worship the G-d of Israel and honor Israel's Messiah and love the Jewish people, respect Jewish identity, honor G-d's choice of Israel and seek to preserve the Jewish people, and do not view Judaism as a "man-made" religion.
6. People who are not Jews or yet followers of Jesus but who honor the G-d of Israel and love Israel and seek her well-being.
7. Those who claim to follow the G-d of Israel and Jesus but demonstrate racial, societal or religious animosity toward the Jewish people, their community and Judaism.
8. Everybody else
Thanks for sharing your personal views, but I don't think they line up with Paul's priorities, I think he would be a better example to follow. Consider Phil 3.
DeleteWith that said, I as a gentile do not want to devalue Jewish identity, because then at the same time I would be devaluing my own identity, and I do not want to be a Jew. With that said, I do not practice anti-semitism in order to boost my gentile identity, and neither do I practice anti-gentilism in order to boost others Jewish identity. The body of Messiah does not erase identity, but identity does not and should not come before the Body or cause a gap or division, as it does in the BE theories.
"my personal order of relational priorities" you list #1 and #2 separately
DeleteIt is impossible to love G-d more than Yeshua or of a higher relational priority. The relationship a believer has in the Father is completely bound to the Son. To love one is to love the other. It is impossible to love one more than the other. They are one.
"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."
"It is impossible to love G-d more than Yeshua or of a higher relational priority."
DeleteAnonymous, Jesus, who always pointed to the Father, would disagree with such a statement. According to g. of John he said "The Father is greater than me", clearly setting the priority on the Father above his own self, as I did. Jesus is also quoted to say in the same gospel, "Believe in G-d; believe also in me." (John 14:1), again clearly showing the priority of G-d, the Father.
Also, I am not taking about love or even degrees of "love" (although there are indeed such), but rather about a relational priority, since even those who do not love their fellow (human) brother, much less the King of Israel, are said to not really love G-d in the first place. (1 John 4:20)
Also, being "in" somebody doesn't make one of equal importance. Jesus said in John 17:23 "I in them (disciples) and you in me." The fact that Jesus is said in the g. of John to be is in us (as he himself is in the Father), does not us make more important that Jesus.
" I don't think they line up with Paul's priorities"
DeleteZion, did Paul say that he'd wish to be cut off from Messiah for the sake of his fellow Jews or for the sake of Gentiles? The answer will point you to Paul's relational priorities.
"Zion, did Paul say that he'd wish to be cut off from Messiah for the sake of his fellow Jews or for the sake of Gentiles? The answer will point you to Paul's relational priorities."
DeletePaul saw the Jews coming to faith in the Messiah as the culmination of all things, meaning the end result is that of the redemption of the world, the Messianic Kingdom. The idea that he was struggling with an identity issue such as BE groups are, is not what Paul was dealing with or concerned with on the level that BE is, at least we do not read of this struggle in his writings, and if so, he would have worded things very differently, we would not be reading of: "gentiles grafted in" or "gentiles now part of the commonwealth of Israel", as BE does, Paul would have left those out of his writings, as it would have been too dangerous to possibly blur the identity of Jew and Gentile, He would have also not condemned Peter at Galatia, for separating from the Gentiles, he would have applauded him for upholding identity distinctions.
I am afraid you are reading your own agenda into the scriptures.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteWe are really not interested in your favorite list. You can send it to the "National Inquire."
what we are interested in is if you think that your identity is in Messiah or in Judaism. You see, Paul never said: "in Judaism," but many times he said: "in Messiah."
"What we are interested in is if you think that your identity is in Messiah or in Judaism."
DeleteMy identity is one of a Jew bound to the faith of Israel (a.k.a. Judaism) among my fellow Jews. This is who G-d made me to be for all eternity. For me to deny this fact, is to deny G-d's sovereignty and choice and to deny Messiah of Israel as well, for Judaism was and is his faith too. The faith and hope of Judaism and my own rests in the G-d of Israel and His Messiah.
"You see, Paul never said..."
Paul never said a lot of things.
And there you have it folks. Now maybe you can understand why Judaism rejected the Messiah. And the ones who call themselves "believers" really are not. Evidence by their collective change of mind on the deity of Yeshua.
DeleteYou can lead a horse to the water......
Dan, unlike some who turned their back on their own faith, Jesus never left Judaism. He sought to purify it and correct injustices he saw, but it was his faith. He worshiped in synagogues with his fellow Jews and I believe he is still very much in the midst of them. Even the earliest Christians (Gentiles) worshiped in synagogues in the first few centuries, and the Church "fathers" like Chrysostom and many others scolded them for even associating with Jews much less learning from them. You display the same attitude toward Judaism as them - one of contempt. May G-d lead you to teshuvah.
DeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteYou ever hear the term "grafted in?" Or "Fellow heirs?" Or citizens in the commonwealth of Israel? I guess they don't teach this in the Synagogues of Florida.....
Dan, it is still not too late for you to repent of the hatred.
DeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteThe Jews, my people, rejected their Messiah, and all you guys are doing is defending them by turning the teachings of Yeshua on its head. You are the guys who need teshuvah.
Dan, I will defend my people till my dying breath, both from you and from the slander of others as well.
Delete"...not that I had any charge to bring against my own people." (Acts 28:19)
Dan... I wish you had Moses' attitude toward your people who "rejected their Messiah", to advocate on their behalf before G-d the way he did, unwilling to part from them even for his own sake:
Delete"But now, please forgive their sin--but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." (Exodus 32:32)
Unfortunately, "the Jews", as you referred to them, have so far only felt your contempt for them, a you proclaimed your separation from them and Judaism.
Wrong, Gene. I only have contempt for racists like you guys.
DeleteHow many people mind in your synagogue did you change yet? They all outsmarted you to the point that you reject the deity of Yeshua. How long do you think it will take until you will throw Him of the buss?
Before you attack people on contempt for Jews, first check your contempt for the Jewish Messiah....
"I only have contempt for racists like you guys."
DeleteAnd this coming from a man who has a habit of calling Gentiles he doesn't like "goys"!
"first check your contempt for the Jewish Messiah...."
OK, go ahead, quote me, Dan, please demonstrate my contempt for Jesus.
"How many people mind in your synagogue did you change yet? They all outsmarted you to the point that you reject the deity of Yeshua. How long do you think it will take until you will throw Him of the buss?"
Dan, with how you treat your own, you must have changed many Jewish minds about Jesus as Messiah, that is to never even considered him as such.
"And this coming from a man who has a habit of calling Gentiles he doesn't like "goys"!"
DeleteOnly Gentile deceivers who get a fake conversion and say they are Jews. Pay attention.
"OK, go ahead, quote me, Dan, please demonstrate my contempt for Jesus."
Are you kidding? Your quotes are all over the internet. Start with Judah's blog....
"Dan, with how you treat your own, you must have changed many Jewish minds about Jesus as Messiah, that is to never even considered him as such."
Why don't you answer my question?
"Dan, I will defend my people till my dying breath, both from you and from the slander of others as well."
ReplyDeleteBut you will admit that they rejected their God sent Messiah, right?
I love my people, Gene, but I also love the truth. And the truth is that your crowed is doing to the Gentiles exactly what the Nazis did to our people. You are a bunch of racists....
"And the truth is that your crowed is doing to the Gentiles exactly what the Nazis did to our people. You are a bunch of racists...."
DeleteAntisemites who hate Israel say the same exact nasty drivel about Israelis and Palestinians. You find yourself in a "good" company, Dan.
Gentlemen, just a friendly suggestion. Perhaps when the conversation has reached this point, it's best to take it outside of the public forum.
Delete"Antisemites who hate Israel say the same exact nasty drivel about Israelis and Palestinians. "
ReplyDeletePay attention. I am not talking about Israelies and Palestinians, I am talking about a bunch of American Jews who decided that Judaism is "uber ales" and in the process are throwing gentiles and Yeshua under the bus.
BTW, at Ahavat Zion they banned Joel Chernoff's song "Jew and Gentile one in Messiah..." LOL!
ReplyDeleteMaybe because he misquoted the Scripture(Galatians 3:28):
Delete"There is neither JEW NOR GREEK . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
heheheh :)
They would have kicked Paul out of their synagogues for saying stuff like this, Paul was blurring Jew and Gentile distinctions... When we get to the Kingdom, maybe they can educate Paul and rewrite his writings in order to fit their views. :P
Delete"They would have kicked Paul out of their synagogues for saying stuff like this, Paul was blurring Jew and Gentile distinctions"
DeleteZion, and in the very same verse Paul also said that there's "no male or female" in Christ. That being the case, I think that most One Law congregations would kick him out for what they would assume as blurring the line of distinctions between men and women (if what he said was understood in the same sense as you interpret it, that is of doing away with differing roles and responsibilities.)
Unless of course this is not what Paul had in mind at all.
Gene,
DeletePaul was saying "In Messiah" there is no difference. You of course know this and it shows that your side is just grasping at straws...And of course one day you will all eat this straws.....
Actually the Greek changes a bit when it comes to the male and female... I don't know Greek well... Anyone else care to take that aspect of Gene's comment on?
Delete@Gene
DeleteSo what about a person who decides to have a "sex change?"
I know legally that people can do this. Does it make Mr Rogers Mrs. Rogers if he (or should I say she) gets a "sex change?"
Not thinking of the exception here (those who are born with both body parts and have to "decide") but the hundreds of people (maybe more) who have "gender confusion" and decide to either cut the whole thing off or get one implanted...
"Paul was saying "In Messiah" there is no difference."
DeleteDan, did you read what I said? What are you correcting me on? How is this different than what I just wrote, that is "Paul also said that there's "no male or female" in Christ"???
Or do you simply have a problem calling Jesus "Christ"?
...I wonder what RDL-UMJC-MJRC-COL-KK would declare as truth in this situation? How strong is DNA. Would he let Miss Rogers (previous known as a boy) marry one of his sons?
DeleteJust wondering...is it fair to compare this to "conversion" and the power of human declaration of identity...
"So what about a person who decides to have a "sex change?"
DeleteAnonymous, since this is not what Paul had to contend with in his day, 2K years ago, that is men and women legally changing their gender through sex operations, there's no point of bringing this into discussion. I think that Paul simply meant that G-d sent the Messiah of Israel for everyone's benefit, without distinction.
@Gene...no point really? So then why did you bring up the male and female distinction issue...Are you not willing to apply this to our modern day? Do you not like the "trap" being set before you?
Delete@Gene... please teach me what Paul was dealing with in this verse...
DeletePhilippians 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
What cultural reference was Paul thinking of when he used "dogs" in this verse? Just curious...
"So then why did you bring up the male and female distinction issue"
DeleteAnonymous, because John S. B. above quoted "No Jew or Greek", which people love to point to as his "proof" of "One Law" and to show that there is supposedly no difference in roles and responsibilities between Jews and Gentiles, but he left out the part of the same verse where it goes on to talk of no longer being a difference between men and women. The problem with this selective omission, of course, is that most Christians would not deny that the differences between men and women still very much remain. The people who claim that Jews and Gentiles are now identical in their roles would still take issue with men marrying other men, or women using restrooms marked with 'M'.
@Gene I am one of those evil "One Law" people you enjoy making false statement about....I do not think conversion or sex changes work. DNA is strong. You always say we don't see a difference. This is a lie. I wish you would stop repeating it. It would be a great service to the body of the Messiah if you stopped generalizing such statement. Name names and quote people or stop pretending that you know who you are talking about...(Of course all of this comes from a person who keeps posting thing anonymously...ironic isn't it...)
DeleteAnonymous... calm down, please, with the accusations.
Delete"DNA is strong. You always say we don't see a difference. This is a lie."
You speak of differences as in terms of DNA (a modern concept unheard of in Paul's day), but those are not the differences Paul speaks of. You say that conversions are impossible, but one of the first "deacons", Nicholas, was a convert to Judaism (Acts 6:5). He was obviously accepted as a fellow Jew since this was before the gospel went out to the Gentiles and the very first Gentiles were welcomed by G-d to be part of the "ekklesia" (which wasn't even thought possible until the Cornelius - the first Gentile convert to the new faith - and Peter encounter in Acts 11:18).
"Do you not like the "trap" being set before you?"
DeleteAnonymous... setting traps is not a very nice thing to do, not very ethical. Jesus didn't like when people tried to trap him (Mark 12:13-17), so why would I or anyone?
"calm down, please, with the accusations."
DeleteVery calm here. If the accusations fit your behavior they fit...whether or not I'm calm...
"He was obviously accepted as a fellow Jew"
So you think making halakha from narrative should be normative?
Just because it happens (sorta like sex changes today) does that make it something you are prepared to declare as halakhically approved?
@Gene-
Delete"Anonymous... setting traps is not a very nice thing to do, not very ethical."
If I declare it to be a trap and inform you of it...is it still a trap?
In that case I am just as much in danger of falling into it as you...I suggest we both avoid the trap.
"So you think making halakha from narrative should be normative?"
DeleteAnonymous, Jews (ancient or modern ones who accept(ed) Torah and halacha and live(d) by them) themselves decide who is a convert to Judaism or not. They also decide(d) what halacha is normative for Judaism. That's not something for Hebrew Roots Christians to decide as valid or invalid or even to worry about.
"If I declare it to be a trap and inform you of it...is it still a trap?"
DeleteOf course it still is, even more so since you boldy "declare it" such. You can't have a normal conversation?
@Gene and your example with Dan is what I should hold as your definition of normal?
Delete@Gene. I think I could have a normal conversation. If you would agree to it.
Delete"Gene and your example with Dan is what I should hold as your definition of normal?"
DeleteWith my friend Dan, yes, most definitely, as normal as could be.
"I think I could have a normal conversation. If you would agree to it."
You are the one with all the questions for me, not me for you. Does it indicate the general direction and purpose of this particular conversation?
wow, did i start all this??? lol I was only being silly :)
Delete"Zion, and in the very same verse Paul also said that there's "no male or female" in Christ. That being the case, I think that most One Law congregations would kick him out for what they would assume as blurring the line of distinctions between men and women (if what he said was understood in the same sense as you interpret it, that is of doing away with differing roles and responsibilities.)
DeleteUnless of course this is not what Paul had in mind at all."
Gene, lol, of course, the joke is that even in Pauls context of being "one in Messiah", while there is still Jew and Gentile, male and female, he would still be kicked out, that was the joke.
Because a blurring of distinction both in a literal way and a spiritual way, is detrimental to BE groups. So neither work out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...what if a transvestite decided to create a new TV show called Mrs. Rogers Neighborhood. Dressing as a mother and doing all the things the late Mr. Rogers did... You know "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood... ect..." Would it make any difference if in season two of the PBS series he had an operation that changed him from a transvestite TV children's TV show host to a sex changed TV show host. Would America accept, love, admire the whole thing of be appalled? What kind of country are we living in? What would change if we prayed more often "Your Kingdom come...."
ReplyDelete"whole thing of be appalled?"
Deleteshould say... "or be appalled?"
"Dan, did you read what I said? What are you correcting me on? How is this different than what I just wrote, that is "Paul also said that there's "no male or female" in Christ"???
ReplyDeleteOr do you simply have a problem calling Jesus "Christ"?"
One more time Gene....Did Paul say that the Jew and the Greek are different in Christ? No!
Did Paul say that men and women are different in Christ? No!
Did you know what you are talking about? NO!
"Anonymous, Jews (ancient or modern ones who accept(ed) Torah and halacha and live(d) by them) themselves decide who is a convert to Judaism or not. They also decide(d) what halacha is normative for Judaism. That's not something for Hebrew Roots Christians to decide as valid or invalid or even to worry about."
ReplyDeleteRight on Gene...And those ancient or modern Jews decided that Derek and Boaz's conversions are not worth the paper they are written on...
Like how you painted yourself into a corner....LOL!
"Like how you painted yourself into a corner....LOL!"
DeleteDan, you won't see an argument from me that converts to Messianic Judaism will not be accepted by the mainstream Jewish world or even within all of the MJ world. This is not very different from Reform or Conservative converts. Those who convert this way, they knew of the situation beforehand.
"Dan, you won't see an argument from me that converts to Messianic Judaism will not be accepted by the mainstream Jewish world or even within all of the MJ world. This is not very different from Reform or Conservative converts. Those who convert this way, they knew of the situation beforehand."
DeleteBut of course you will not go and face them on the issue, right? You just continue to fall in line with their deception, right? And i thought you had a backbone....
"But of course you will not go and face them on the issue, right? You just continue to fall in line with their deception, right? And i thought you had a backbone...."
DeleteI understand that they both converted through a Jewish beis din, of one sort or another, and both are quite open about it. I don't see "deception" here that you speak of.
"I understand that they both converted through a Jewish beis din, of one sort or another, and both are quite open about it. I don't see "deception" here that you speak of."
DeleteWhat Jewish beit dins? What qualification do they have? Do you think any shmo and his mother in law can call itself "beit din?"
"What Jewish beit dins? What qualification do they have? Do you think any shmo and his mother in law can call itself "beit din?""
DeleteDan, why does it matter?! You don't accept ANY beit din, since you reject Judaism, so none are qualified for you (which of course does not matter to those batei din either).
"since you reject Judaism,"
DeleteWrong, I reject MJ your style. You have yet to explain why you are defending two deceivers whose fake conversion is not accepted by any Jewish branch, only by invented Micky Mouse beit dins...
I am with Dan on this one, all I am seeing is Mickey Mouse Productions... and then a pointing of fingers claiming everyone else is illegitimate, oh the hypocrisy...
Delete"That's not something for Hebrew Roots Christians to decide as valid or invalid or even to worry about."
ReplyDeleteWhatever you define as Judaism...is it Judaism?
It really does come down to a matter of authority doesn't it?
You can define it however you like. I won't be publishing any books as an "outsider" or am I an outsider? I think I know your answer....I might be surprised.
On the issue of traps...You are in absolutely no danger of being harmed by any "trap" I set out...This is the internet! It doesn't really have that much to do with real life...does it...
I think an ethic of blogging would be a worthy thing. But I'm not going to hold my breath at anyone agreeing to follow these kind of rules...
"That's not something for Hebrew Roots Christians to decide..."
DeleteThis is an example of what I was saying earlier... Why act as if these aren't "real people" with names... You may as well say Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, the government, or Reform Jews... it doesn't get me any closer to really knowing who you are talking about...so it doesn't really get me any closer to actually reconciling anyone to the Truth.
Maybe I just need to calm down ;-)
"Why act as if these aren't "real people" with names."
DeleteI don't call out people by name, I don't talk about specific individuals, either in my blog posts or comments, unless I am talking directly to them or have something positive to say about them (or if they are deceased). I do this on purpose, because I believe it is an ethical and halachic thing to do. Instead, I talk about groups and theologies.
You can compare my blog and comments to those of others to see this pattern.
"I talk about groups and theologies."
DeleteI think that is a big part of the problem. I think it is part of why when you have a question concerning halakha and ask a Rabbi (being vague I know...just go with it) they will often refer you to a local Rabbi and have you ask them the question. Hmm....I still am frustrated by the way you lump everyone together and speak as an authority. That is part of the "beef" I have when I read your comments. Maybe, I am reading you wrong...
"I still am frustrated by the way you lump everyone together and speak as an authority."
DeleteI agree, that's a downside when one is forced to be vague for the sake of not defaming a particular person. The solution is to include the word "some", that is to qualify that not all persons in a particular group in question subscribe to a certain view or guilty of a specific action. I usually and quite consciously try to do just that (not to broad-brush, unless it is warranted), but I admit that I am not always consistent as I should be.
"speak as an authority"
DeleteI speak as someone with opinions. Yes, they are sometimes strong, because I believe in them and because are born of my background, learning, experience and common sense. But you know what they say of opinions...
"But you know what they say of opinions..."
DeleteYep...it applies to both of us...
And there is a blessing to be said when they work correctly.
I want to restate a verse I started this comment section with...
ReplyDeleteProverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.
I consider these words just as much applicable to myself (more so if I consider the words of Messiah in relation to splinters and logs in eyes).
Or as a Gentile should I stop reading this "Jewish mail" in the book of Proverbs as if it has anything to do with me? In the Messiah does this verse apply differently to a Jew then it does a Gentile? If it doesn't apply differently does that wipe out the difference between Jews and Gentiles? Or is there a Jewish way to apply 2 Tim 3:16,17 related to this verse and a Gentile way to apply it....
"If it doesn't apply differently does that wipe out the difference between Jews and Gentiles?"
DeleteI should have said..Does it need to be applied differently in order to maintain Jewish and Gentiles distinctions in the world? If we say Jew and Gentile should learn from this the same exact things does that make us crypto-supercesionist...
"Or as a Gentile should I stop reading this "Jewish mail" in the book of Proverbs as if it has anything to do with me?"
DeleteThis particular "Jewish mail" (the Bible) is now in public domain, for all to read and benefit from. As with most mail originally sent to someone else, there are contents and instructions (but also curses) that do not apply to the third party reader to whom the mail was not addressed.
Hmm... I think the whole world has a problem and God has an answer....regardless of how we fight to make distinctions... Reading the first few chapters of Romans....
DeleteRomans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...
These "curses" apply to all as does the solution...
Does it make a Jewish person mad if a Gentile attempts to teach something?
Delete"Does it make a Jewish person mad if a Gentile attempts to teach something?"
DeleteUnless this something is against the Jewish people, I don't think so.
@Gene, Thanks. It definitely wasn't anything against the Jewish people. I guess I shouldn't accuse you of being overly vague and then turn right around and do the same thing. I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
DeleteNo, problem, anonymous, thank you for being a good sport.
Delete"This particular "Jewish mail" (the Bible) is now in public domain, for all to read and benefit from. As with most mail originally sent to someone else, there are contents and instructions (but also curses) that do not apply to the third party reader to whom the mail was not addressed."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet Yeshua said:"Go and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you..." (Matt. 28:19).
Do you think that Matt. 5:17-20 was not included?
In becoming a believer in Yeshua, I've always been under the impression that if someone takes upon themselves the Messiah and His New Covenant with the Torah, whether Jew or Gentile, they are Israel, and essentially leap-frog over the Rabbanic necessity of conversion. In connection with this, the Torah of God, which has not been done away with, is for all Israel. Scripture seems pretty clear about that.
DeleteExodus 12:49: One Torah shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of Judgment, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Numbers 15:16 One Torah and one manner of Judgment shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
I know some like to get technical and say you must be in the land for these to apply, but that's simply narishkeit. To sojourn among Israel, the Israel of God, all one needs is to be in Messiah, who, incidently, is called "Israel" in prophecy.
"And yet Yeshua said:"Go and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you..." (Matt. 28:19)."
DeleteIf "BE" groups were present, they would respond with, "Surely you don't mean everything, because then the gentiles might look like Jews, it would be better if we did not teach them anything...uphold distinction at all cost."
John what have you done ;-)
ReplyDeleteCircle the wagons!!!
Some of the Laywers of the Anti-Supersessionist League (LOTASL) from the Union of Unified But Separate Jewish and Gentile Messianics United Alliance of Fellow-Heirs Living Together Yet Apart Fighting Crypto-Supersessionism World Wide as One Body in Bilateral Unity (AKA.. UUBSJGMUAFHLTYAFCSWWAOBIBU) may be attacking this blog in any moment...
lol
DeleteI've only been "Messianic" for a short while, and I'm not very familiar with the different philosophies, or rather, what they're called. I know that there are pro-Torah and not-so-pro-Torah groups, as well as others (oy va'avoy).
Supersessionism was something I've not been familiar with until I joined this group and looked at Derek's blog. I fear if someone were to debate me on the topic, I would crumble in my ignorance.
If it has something to do with replacement ideologies as it seems to suggest (from supersede?), then I do not believe in it.
But what do we do with a statement like (Romans 9.6): "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" in connection with what we know concerning Salvation being in no other Name, and that no one calls Messiah accursed by the Holy Spirit, which mainstream Judaism does, and which I myself, as a Jew, have done?
I don't ask to be rhetorical. I'm just trying to understand things. I have only been "Messianic" for a short while, although I have believed in Yeshua since 97. I had maintained a Conservative Jewish practice for 10 years before seeking out "Messianic" groups. In a sense, I'm still seeking, though I'm secure in my faith in Yeshua. I just don't want to be alone :(
During those 10 years, I read the NT alone, with the understanding that it's a book written by Jews. I have not perceived anything anti-Torah or Torah-done-away-ness or that only Jews are to be Torah observant. Well, until I got to Paul's writings and what they *seemed* to say about these things, which was finally explained to me why they *seemed* so when I reached 2 Peter lol
I had a lot of frustrations reading the NT, especially thru Paul's writings, even tossing it across the room from time to time (leather bound books are quite durable). Paul did not write like an ordinary Jewish scholar of his time.
Anyways, I wanted to express that I don't understand supersessionsim and ask the question and just ended up rambling here, sorry :)
John,
DeleteSupersessionism is when a Theology attempts to push Jews out of their seat. Inclusionist Messianic Judaism (i.e. One Law) says that Jews remain Jews and remain obligated to the Sinaitic Covenant. Thus, it can't be considered supersessionist--because Jews keep their seat. They remain the older brother--and that means being a role model and also teaching the younger, adopted brother (Gentiles) how to understand and practice Torah.
Is this to say that they teach the Gentiles how to understand and practice Torah in accordance with Rabbinic standards?
DeleteI had posted this already, but I did something incorrect. I wanted to say:
DeleteThank you for you explanation, Peter. I can certainly say I am not a Supersessionist. From what I can understand thus far about Inclusionist ideology, I can agree.
"Is this to say that they teach the Gentiles how to understand and practice Torah in accordance with Rabbinic standards?"
DeleteWell, technically that would be a contradiction, as the Rabbinic standard or understanding of Torah has no room for gentiles and does not recognize gentiles who are now in Messiah. But that does not mean there is not much to learn and the fact that there has been a history of Jews keeping the Torah, it would be stupid to ignore how, where, when and what should be done from their wisdom, but we simply cannot accept it all upon us as authoritative, as some of it invalidates God's word, just like Christian commentary and understanding of scriptures...
We see examples of the Apostles keeping halacha in the "New Testament", at the same time, we see a perfect example in Acts 10, where certain Halacha was not of God and was thus invalid. So this is a balanced view, some is good some is bad... no one should be denying all halacha or discounting it as worthless at the same time, no one should simply take it upon themselves as if it yields the authority of God, both would be a mistake.
Thank You, Zion, for your confirming explanation. I agree with the balanced perspective on this matter.
DeleteYou should be in comedy....LOL!
ReplyDeleteI am sorely tempted to poke at James(the blogger) for taking part of our discussion and featuring it on his site...Labeling it "Commentary from a Hebrew Roots blog site" but I don't have the fight in me. Truth is I feel bad for how he has been treated as he went from "One Law" to now championing FFOZ Messianic Gentile Vision... But James you are doing this to yourself...Some of your grief is self-inflicted.
ReplyDeleteThat is all I can muster up...
@James-I hope you celebrate this Passover at home with your family and experience a taste of the joy and freedom the holiday is intended to teach...
Shalom my brother...
@James - I suggest you take on more than one source from a Messianic perspective in your study of Galatians.
ReplyDeleteTry this one...
It won't cost you anything either...
http://galatians.cloudtri.com/
--“Only through circumcision can [a Gentile] be incorporated into the people of Israel and their Torah.”--
ReplyDeleteHuh. Could have fooled me. All this time I thought it was faith that made us brothers of Yeshua, and children of the Most High.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, I wonder what anybody on the outside would think of all of the above.
DeleteJust a few points on Noahide Laws.
1. Is their anyone who thinks the Holy Torah does not forbid the following?
Idolatry
Blasphemy
Sexual Immorality
Murder
Theft
Cruelty
Injustice
2. Regarding the Jerusalem Council and the 4 prohibitions and their relationship to the Noahide Laws, Hasn't anyone ever considered that three of the seven that were left out, that is:
Murder
Theft
Establishing Courts
...were already dealt with under Roman Law.
3. That Blasphemy which specifically deals with false oaths was already dealt with by Yeshua when he forbade the taking of Oaths(I'm simplifying for time/space) altogether.
Isn't it possible,, if not likely, that the fact that the Jerusalem council specifically dealt with these three: Idolatry, Sexual Immorality and dietary issues related to slaughter and the consumption of blood, is due not just because these represent pagan practices but also because the others are already dealt with?