Gazans Celebrate Synagogue Massacre By Handing Out Candy

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

Islamists Slaughter 5 Praying Jews, Obama Says "Too Many Palestinians Have Died"

Three of the victims killed on Tuesday were American citizens.  And yet our President will do nothing but talk about how many Palestinians have died and says that Palestinians and Israelis should work together to "lower tensions."

THE PALESTINIANS ARE CELEBRATING IN THE STREETS!  HOW CAN YOU WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO CELEBRATE THE MURDER OF JEWS WHO WERE PRAYING IN SYNAGOGUE?!

Well, I'm going to stop for now because I can't even see through my tears.

Dear Sam Nadler: Please Stop Calling Yourself Messianic

Dear Sam Nadler,

I was in a bookstore recently and noticed your book entitled "Messiah in the Feasts of Israel."  The book identifies you as Messianic.  And so I purchased the book thinking I was purchasing Messianic teaching on the Feasts of Israel.  Let me emphasize this point:  I wasn't looking for Christian teaching on the Feasts of Israel; I was specifically looking for Messianic teaching.

But now I realize I wasted $6.50 because you are not Messianic at all but rather Christian in both belief and affiliation.

Belief:

Your teaching matches Christian teaching exactly in that you teach Yeshua abolished the Law.  I noticed an example of this in the very first chapter of your book in which you claim that Yeshua “fulfilled” the commandment of Shabbat which you go on to explain is why this commandment is not reiterated in the New Covenant (in your opinion). You even praise the “flexibility” of Bishop Ambrose who famously rejected the commandment of Shabbat “when in Rome.” 

Affiliation:

So then I discovered from online research that, as a member of AMC, you believe the following:

"The Believer and the Law of Moses...We believe the Law of Moses as a rule of life has been fulfilled in the Messiah and therefore believers are no longer under its' obligation or condemnation. While the Law of Moses is no longer obligatory for believers, the Law has much to teach us regarding a joyfully Jewish way of life. Both Jewish and non-Jewish believers have the freedom in Messiah to maintain any aspects of the Law of Moses which do not violate the entirety of the rest of scripture.(Acts 21:24-26; Romans 6:14;8:2;10:4;14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 9:20; 2 Corinthians 3:1- 11; Galatians 3:3,3:10-13;6:2; Ephesians 2:14 )," from http://www.messianicassociation.org/believe.htm

Now, I’m sure you’re a nice guy and not trying to be intentionally deceptive.  But ask yourself this:  “Is my teaching any different than Christian teaching?”  If you want to be truthful, acknowledge the fact that “Christian” is the correct and precise term to describe your teaching.  You don’t need any other term. 

So please stop calling yourself Messianic.

P.S.

For the record, a Messianic is a Yeshua-follower who believes the Mosaic Law is still in force.

Sincerely,

Peter

Discussion Question: Is It Okay for a Messianic to Identify as a Christian? (And Vice Versa)

Hypothetical #1:

You're a Messianic (i.e. a Yeshua-follower who believes that Mosaic Law is still in force) visiting a church.  Someone asks "Are you a Christian?"  How should you respond? (Give your reasoning).

Hypothetical #2:

You're a Messianic visiting with your neighbors and they ask "Are you a Christian?"  How should you respond? (Give your reasoning).

Hypothetical #3:

You're a Christian (Jewish or otherwise) and you have a teaching ministry.  Is it okay to call yourself Messianic?

Blessing Israel in Word and Action (Re-Blogged from Kineti L'Tziyon)

This is a great way to bless Israel in a tangible way!


CLICK HERE FOR LINK

"Loosed From This Bond on the Sabbath Day": Understanding the Slavery Metaphor in Luke 13 as it Relates to Shabbat

"10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had had a spirit of affliction for eighteen years. She was hunched over and could not fully straighten herself. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your sickness.” 13 And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. 14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” 17 As he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him," (Luke 13:10-17)

Why were Yeshua's adversaries put to shame?

To understand that, one needs to consider the context of Shabbat--specifically the metaphor of "slavery" in the Exodus story.

On one level, the Israelites were merely slaves to the Egyptians; but, on a deeper level, they were slaves to Satan in the form of all the idols of the Egyptians:

"Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.  But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.  Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.  And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.  Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them," (Ezekiel 20:7-12)

Shabbat represents mankind's conversion--turning from being servants of Satanic idols to being servants of Adonai.

This symbolism is the same for both Jew and Gentile:

“And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be His servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant," (Isaiah 56:6)

And also:

"19 'Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues,'" (Acts 15:19-21)

As Gentiles, it's often confusing how we should interpret certain mitzvot given to ethnic descendants of Israel:

"You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day"

Here's my take:  both Jew and Gentile were set free from idolatrous bondage and should observe Shabbat accordingly.  Now, I realize there are many in Messianic circles that say Gentiles are merely "invited" to Shabbat.  But the Truth is this:  you can either take hold of Shabbat and serve G-d or stay behind in Egypt and serve Satan.

By What Standard?

Imagine a newcomer to Messianic Judaism, a man who is drawn to the Faith because He loves Yeshua and desires a clear standard of conduct by which to pattern his way of life.  This hypothetical newbie is the deliberative and philosophical sort and so he understands that there are approximately four possible standards for conduct (the first three being relativist, the last option being absolutist):

• Do what feels good.
• Do what seems good.
• Do what culture says is good.
• Do what Scripture says is good.

With this in mind, he then turns his attention to the standards offered by the two camps of Messianic Judaism: the Exclusionists who say Gentiles are excluded from Israel, the Inclusionist who say Gentiles are included in Israel (through Messiah Yeshua):

• (1) Exclusionist:  Gentiles must keep moral law, may keep Scriptural laws that are not "distinctive sign commandments given to Israel";

• (2) Inclusionist: The "One Law" precedent in Torah dictates that all members of Israel, whether native or newcomer, must keep the Torah of Moses 

Now, our very logical newbie will find the first view very confusing.  All law is moral after all.  And all revealed law in Torah contributes to Israel's distinctiveness.  So the Exclusionist standard is void for being incoherent.

So then the last option is the Inclusionist standard.  It takes into account that all law is moral. It's based on binding precedent and the fact that the Apostolic Scriptures state that Gentiles are included in Israel through the Messiah Yeshua.  Also, it is an absolute standard (as opposed to a relativist standard).

In conclusion, for our slightly above-average newbie, the choice is obvious.  In Messianic Judaism, there really is only one viable standard for conduct that is based upon an absolute standard.

David Horowitz Responds to a Chillingly Honest Muslim at UCSD [VIDEO]

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

"Ten Persistent Questions" by Tim Hegg

LINK

I finally took the plunge and ordered "Ten Persistent Questions."  Mostly to get Dan off my back.  But also because when I read the description just now, I really liked the premise--answering ten questions most often raised against Torah observance:

 • 1. Didn't Yeshua Declare All Foods Clean? (Mark 7:19)

 • 2. If We're to Keep the Torah, What About Animal Sacrifices?

 • 3. If Yeshua and His Apostles Changed the Sabbath to Sunday, Doesn't That Prove That the Torah Has Been Done Away With?

 • 4. Doesn't Paul Dismiss the Torah's Laws About Food, Festivals, New Moons, and Sabbaths in Colossians 2?

 • 5. In Peter's Vision (Acts 10), Didn't God Make it Clear that there was No Longer any Need to Keep the Food Laws of the Torah?

 • 6. Paul Make it Clear that we are "Not Under the Law." Doesn't that mean that we are no longer required to keep Torah?

 • 7. If Paul abolished the commandment of circumcision, doesn't that prove that the Torah has been abolished?

 • 8. Didn't the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) make it clear that the Torah was only for the Jewish people?

 • 9. Wasn't the Torah given to condemn sinners and not for a guide to live righteously? (1 Tim 1:8; Gal. 3:19)

 • 10. Didn't God abolish the ceremonial and civil parts of the Torah, requiring of us only the moral laws?

The Book of Hebrews Challenge: Are You Ready For It?

You're a Messianic visiting a Sunday school class at a local church, someone is talking about the Book of Hebrews, how it "clearly" shows that the sacrificial system and the Law has come to an end.  How do you respond when the following passages are cited? 

Remember:  the reason why you want to be ready with a persuasive response isn't to "win" an argument.  We want to gently bring Christians to the realization that the Apostolic Writings are pro-Torah so that they can grow in their faith as we approach the End Times, the Age of the Anti-Messiah, the Age of the Great Falling Away--a time when only those few who use the Torah as a guide will find their Way to the finish line.

Are you ready?

"For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well," Hebrews 7:12 

"18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God," (Hebrews 7:18-19) 

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," (Hebrews 8:13) 

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near," (Hebrews 10:1) 

"Then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second," (Hebrews 10:9)

I'll go over some possible approaches tomorrow.  But in the meantime, without looking anything up, try to respond to a few of the cited passages.

Rediscovering the Book of Hebrews in its Pro-Judaic Context [CLASSIC REPOST OF MCKEE REVIEW]

PURCHASE THIS BOOK HERE:  [LINK]

HEBREWS FOR THE PRACTICAL MESSIANIC:  A REVIEW

Is the Book of Hebrews anti-Torah and anti-Judaism?  In "Hebrews for the Practical Messianic", J.K. McKee observes that this tends to be the standard approach to Hebrews:

"Hebrews is frequently read as...opposing the commandments of the Torah of Moses…[and] the argumentation style of the Epistle to the Hebrews has sometimes been taken as being anti-Judaism…" pg. 264

In particular:

"Christians have difficulty understanding Hebrews with its emphasis on the Law of Moses and animal sacrifices, because of their large disconnection to the Torah," pg. 261

But is the author of Hebrew really anti-Torah?

"[T]he author of Hebrews is quite insistent that the Law has not been abolished, twice quoting the critical New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that Moses' Teaching is to be written on the hearts and minds of God's people (8:8-12; 10:16-17)," pg. 264

Does the style of the book of Hebrews really show disrespect for Judaism?

"[I]n actuality [the author of Hebrews] employs a common Rabbinic qal v'chomer or classical a fortiori approach, demonstrating great respect for the institutions and historical figures of Ancient Israel in order to precisely show how much greater and grander the Messiah actually is."  

Throughout the commentary, McKee tackles three forms of this anti-Judaic bias:

1.  biased mistranslations

2.  biased additions of words that do not appear in the Greek source text

3.  passages in which the English translation contains both types of translational problems simultaneously: extra words and mistranslated words:

Here are a few examples:

(1) "…biased translations into English…" pg. 263.

The example of 8:7:

pg. 267 "A translation challenge is present in 8:7, though, because as the NIV renders it, 'For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.'  The Greek [Ei gar he port en amemptos] actually reads 'for if that first were faultless' (YLT) with no associated noun.  …While 'first' [could refer to "covenant"]…[it] could also speak of the [tabernacle/priesthood/ministry].  It is far better, given the limitations of the human priests who occupied the Levitical service (7:28), for ["first"] in 8:7 to be associated with the Earthly Tabernacle, priesthood, or ministry of the Levitical service--not the covenant made by God."

(2) "…words added to an English translation that do not appear in the source text ((i.e., 8:7, 13; 9:1, 17, 24; 10:1)," pg. 263.

The example of 8:13:

pg. 267 "8:13 especially has some transmission issues into English.  Its opening clause [en to legion kainen] is simply 'in the saying 'new'' (YLT), with no noun provided.  [Kainen] should be understood as applying to the tabernacle/priesthood/ministry of the Levitical service, given what 8:13b says:  [to de palaioumenon kai geraskon engus aphanismou].  While often rendered with 'what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear,' the verbs [palaioo] and [gerasko] both mean 'to age.'  To regard the Levitical service as 'obsolete' is too strong, whereas the NEB offers the much better rendering, 'growing old and aging.'  The Levitical service would have been older in its time of service than Yeshua's priestly service in Heaven (although it has been based on Melchizedek's priesthood), and it would disappear at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., a timestamp on when Hebrews was composed in the late 60s C.E."

(3)  passages in which the English translation contains both types of translational problems simultaneously: extra words and mistranslated words:

The example of 9:16-17:

Is "will" or "testament" a viable translation of [diatheke] ("covenant")?  While such an interpretation seems valid when the sentence passage includes the phrase "when people die", the reality is that the phrase "when people die" does not appear in the source text (pg. 154).  Furthermore, as Lane notes, "There is no evidence in classical or papyriological sources to substantiate that a will or testament was legally valid only when its testator died.  A will became operative as soon as it was properly drafted, witnessed, and notarized."  

McKee suggests smoother translations such as Lane's, "For a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of sacrificial victims' (WBC)" on the basis that it more accurately fits with the Ancient Near Eastern covenantal context:

"The translation of…'sacrificial victims' (WBC), may be regarded as something definitely rooted within Ancient Near Eastern covenanting procedures, where there would be animals slaughtered to give some kind of surety to the covenant.  This frequently involved those making the agreement saying that they would become as such dead animals if they did not live up to it.  A covenant, when violated, does often seek the death of the violator."  

On a side note, McKee persuasively argues on the basis of Isaiah 24:5 that all of mankind is guilty of violating G-d's covenant:  "The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant," (Isaiah 24:5).  This helps explain the scope behind Hebrews 9:28 "So Messiah also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many…"

CONCLUSION

The value of this commentary cannot be overstated.  McKee has brought out all of the nuances of the Greek source text, the fascinating rationales behind the author's use of Septuagint passages--many of which deviate substantially from the Masoretic Text, and most especially, the complex Hebraic context of the Ancient Near East in general and first-century Judaism(s) in particular. 

In short, it's a must read!

Halberstam on the Ethics of Calling People Out

"Imagine a world where your behavior is never evaluated:  no one ever praises you, no one ever criticizes you.  Whenever you do something wrong, people say, 'Ah, you know how she is, you can't really blame her.  If you knew about her upbringing, you'd understand.'  Most people hate to be excused in that dismissive manner.  We want people to hold us responsible for what we do, even if that means ticking them off.  We would much prefer to have people angry with us than have them pity us.
     Strangely, when it comes to criticizing others, we suddenly become very 'understanding' and refuse to pronounce judgment.  We can be amazingly inventive in thinking up excuses to exonerate others' trespasses.  Sometimes we turn sociologist and blame the system, the economy, or the culture.  Sometimes we become psychologists and point to mitigating factors like stress and insecurities.  Excusing others makes us feel magnanimous and compassionate.  These are undeserved emotions, however, for what we're really doing is condescending to people and showing them lack of respect," pg. 126 of Everyday Ethics by Joshua Halberstam.

   

Aaron Eby to Non-Jews (FFOZ): "Think of Jews as Your Conquerors and Pray Accordingly"

"Gentiles who devote themselves to Yeshua of Nazareth are not only disciples; they are his subjects, and he is their King. In that sense they relate to the nation of Israel and the Jewish people in the same way that a conquered and annexed people is subordinated to a conquering king. These Gentiles are no longer separated from the Messiah or “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12). Instead, they share in the inheritance and the destiny of the whole nation. In keeping with this identity, the God-fearing Messianic Gentile should not hesitate to join the Jewish people in formal prayer," pg. 47 of First Steps in Messianic Jewish Prayer by Aaron Eby

 Uh huh...uh huh...wait WHAT?

Okay, I don't know anything about Eby.  But does this guy really think a subjugated person can have a good, healthy relationship with his or her conqueror?  Does this sound like a normal, healthy family relationship?

FFOZ just keeps getting weirder and weirder.  ALSO, it's interesting that FFOZ's new book on Jewish prayer, according to James Pyles, makes no mention of the laws of a minyan.  That's very telling.  

Someone who knows FFOZ leadership should press them on this subject:  what do they believe about the laws of minyanim?  I'd love to hear their answer to that!

Excellent Article on the Difference Between Reform and Conservative Halacha

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

Great Resource on Halacha Theory -- NLE Resources

I came across this a few minutes ago and it appears to be an astounding resource on Halachic theory (LINK).  On the right of the page, there is a menu titled "How to Use NLE Class Materials."  Towards the bottom of that menu, there is a section titled "The System of Halacha."  Within that section are 9 PDFs that look to be very informative.  Enjoy.