|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 31, 2007 12:17:56 GMT -8
Yitzchak, I completely understand what you are saying. I'm also looking at it from another angle. is not necessary for salvation, correct? Now let's look at from a 1st century perspective to see how it applies today. There is the command of a circ male must eat the passover and an uncirc must not eat it. Now from the looks of scripture although the uncirc male is living among Israel he must not eat it. Now what did that mean in the 1st century gentile believers? The uncirc as Paul addresses. Because of Yeshua are Gentiles now(in the present tense of the 1st century) able to eat the Passover? Marc I would like to question some of the presuppositions that have thus far gone unquestioned in this thread. 1) is not necessary for salvation. I've struggled with the question of salvation. At this point, I don't know what the least requirement is, but can we agree that it is required that a person be a disciple of R. Yehoshu'a? 2) That a gentile is capable of accepting the Mashiakh. I do not believe that any gentile can be a follower of Mashiakh. He said, "I came not but unto the sheep which have gone astray from the house of Israel." My friends who were born gentiles often tell me "I'm just a gentile" to which I reply "then I'm sorry that Yeshua didn't come for you." Sha'ul HaTalmid explained to us: but those who are of the faith, these are b'ney Avraham. I don't believe this is any kind of replacement. It is an addition. Sons have been adopted, and as a result they are required to keep the rules of the House. Shalom, nachshon
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 31, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -8
OK, so lets develop this a bit further, as I have been giving this subject much thought the last few days. It is clear that there are many within the believing community, outside of Messianic Judaism that do not accept your assessment. To them there is a new entity established called the "church", and this replaces Israel. Now, I understand that there are many within this "church" that love Israel and the Jewish people. They even celebrate the Moedim, and have some Jewish trappings, but for the most part it is more about identification for them than it is observance. I have no problem with what you have stated. I have no problem accepting that their are fellow heirs, fellow citizens, and adopted sons. However, most within this entity called the "church" do not see the Ephesians 2 concept of a "commonwealth". They ignore the same concept established in Gen 35, when HaShem says to Yaacov, " וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי, פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה--גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם, יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ; וּמְלָכִים, מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ Specifically, I will make of you goy u'kahal goyim. A nation, and company or commonwealth of nations. So, here is what I see. I see that there is a distinction between the "church" and the "commonwealth of Israel". I think that when a believer comes into the "commonwealth" and recognizes this concept that they are in fact now required to walk in and are subject to all the rules of the house. While I think that believers who are in the "church" have salvation through the same sacrifice as those in the "commonwealth", I do not think that you can expect them to accept the rules of the house, when they are living in the wrong house. Hope that makes sense. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 31, 2007 13:49:49 GMT -8
The thing I don't see is how they can be saved and not be members of the house. Of course, I've been questioning the doctrine of an eternal hell, which is the foundation of the modern concept of salvation, so I'm not even sure that my question applies. I've been looking into what is the bare minimum for salvation, and I don't think that a person can be saved and be comepletely Torahless. I'm wondering if the mitzwoth that Ribi Yehoshu'a gave the rich young ruler is that bare minimum...but then I'm not sure, because of the mitzwoth that were given in Acts 15.
It makes sense, but I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that a person can be "saved" outside of the commonwealth of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jul 31, 2007 17:58:20 GMT -8
Interesting points all... But there are a couple of things I'd like to add. First, halacha has already determined what defines a Jew. If one follows Judaism, then there really should be no question.
Second, the reference in Romans has been used by C*hristians in the form of Replacement Theology. It is a very dangerous road to travel.
Third, if one converts to Judaism then they are legitimately Jewish. In fact, Chazal teaches that they shouldn't even be referred to as "proselytes" but instead regarded as though they were born a Jew.
Last, I don't think that there is such a thing as a bare minimum for salvation. There is a bare minimum for Goyim laid out in Acts 15 (the earliest written record of the Noachide Mitzvot), but that was not designed to be the end. They were (and are) expected to learn and do more, with the eventual goal being full observance of all the mitzvot, just as a Jew.
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Jul 31, 2007 18:08:24 GMT -8
Naturally, some of us don't follow Rabbinic halacha. By Rabbinic halacha, actually, you are not a Jew, Natanel. Notzrim were included in an ancient version of Birkat HaMinim, and Jerome wrote a letter to Augustine in 404 C.E. stating that the Nazarene sect was normally called the Miney. According to the Talmud, the N'tzarim are cursed because they "did not weep for Jerusalem" (most likely meaning they didn't join the Bar-Kosiba revolt.)
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 31, 2007 18:40:33 GMT -8
The thing I don't see is how they can be saved and not be members of the house. Of course, I've been questioning the doctrine of an eternal hell, which is the foundation of the modern concept of salvation, so I'm not even sure that my question applies. Well, if we look at the scriptures which state that salvation is not obtained by works of law, but by faith, how do you exclude them? On the other hand, if they are saved, what is the penalty for ignoring the of G-d and His mitzvot? Of course, they might state that they are not Torahless. They follow the Ten supposedly, and what they like to call the moral laws, but ignore things like the Moedim, Kashrut, and Sabbath. Of course these could be considered the weightier matters. If there is a bare minimum, then how we defend the One Law doctrine? How do you reconcile those in the church who do not consider the commonwealth as a valid entity, and yet worship Yeshua? Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 31, 2007 18:48:08 GMT -8
Interesting points all... But there are a couple of things I'd like to add. First, halacha has already determined what defines a Jew. If one follows Judaism, then there really should be no question. Well, it actually depends who you ask Natanel. I have been told my [some that I am still a Jew, but just not Jewish. Others tell me I am [no longer a Jew, because of my faith in Messiah. One cannot follow Judaism, and be a follower of Yeshua according to halakha. Of course, which is why I reminded everyone to be careful when using it. This is true from a Rabbinic perspective. If this is the case, then what are we to make of the millions in the church that flat out reject the notion of observance for Gentiles. They ignore what Eph 2 says on the subject. Are we to just say that somehow they are lost? My wife and I were discussing this earlier. If observance is required of Jews, then what of the Jews in the church? If Gentiles are only supposed to start with Acts 15 as an entry point, and then continue in learning until full observance, what is the penalty for their disobedience? I am interested in hearing everyone's perspectives on this very controversial subject. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 23:04:13 GMT -8
The thing I don't see is how they can be saved and not be members of the house. Of course, I've been questioning the doctrine of an eternal hell, which is the foundation of the modern concept of salvation, so I'm not even sure that my question applies. Well, if we look at the scriptures which state that salvation is not obtained by works of law, but by faith, how do you exclude them? On the other hand, if they are saved, what is the penalty for ignoring the of G-d and His mitzvot? Of course, they might state that they are not Torahless. They follow the Ten supposedly, and what they like to call the moral laws, but ignore things like the Moedim, Kashrut, and Sabbath. Of course these could be considered the weightier matters. If there is a bare minimum, then how we defend the One Law doctrine? How do you reconcile those in the church who do not consider the commonwealth as a valid entity, and yet worship Yeshua? Shalom, Yitzchak I heard this from another board: The are pork eating, Sabbath breaking people who obey more than those that keep kosher and keep the Sabbath. Sort of gets you thinking. Here was a good question I found: Not eating pork and keeping the sabbath = equals , or the Law as reaffirmed by the Prophets. The is not necessary for salvation. The law as affirmed by the Prophets is not necessary for salvation. So, what is the for then? And if it was not necessary for salvation, why does Yeshua say it will never be abolished, till the earth be removed? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 23:07:30 GMT -8
Interesting points all... But there are a couple of things I'd like to add. First, halacha has already determined what defines a Jew. If one follows Judaism, then there really should be no question. Well, it actually depends who you ask Natanel. I have been told my [some that I am still a Jew, but just not Jewish. Others tell me I am [no longer a Jew, because of my faith in Messiah. One cannot follow Judaism, and be a follower of Yeshua according to halakha. Of course, which is why I reminded everyone to be careful when using it. This is true from a Rabbinic perspective. If this is the case, then what are we to make of the millions in the church that flat out reject the notion of observance for Gentiles. They ignore what Eph 2 says on the subject. Are we to just say that somehow they are lost? My wife and I were discussing this earlier. If observance is required of Jews, then what of the Jews in the church? If Gentiles are only supposed to start with Acts 15 as an entry point, and then continue in learning until full observance, what is the penalty for their disobedience? I am interested in hearing everyone's perspectives on this very controversial subject. Shalom, Yitzchak Yitzchak I think we need to look at this on a 1st century perspective and see how this applies today. So let's go back. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Jul 31, 2007 23:10:39 GMT -8
edit
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 1:04:49 GMT -8
Naturally, some of us don't follow Rabbinic halacha. By Rabbinic halacha, actually, you are not a Jew, Natanel. Notzrim were included in an ancient version of Birkat HaMinim, and Jerome wrote a letter to Augustine in 404 C.E. stating that the Nazarene sect was normally called the Miney. According to the Talmud, the N'tzarim are cursed because they "did not weep for Jerusalem" (most likely meaning they didn't join the Bar-Kosiba revolt.) Let me ask a question and it's not to promote or criticize. If we follow Rabbinic halacha doesn't Rabbinic halacha put fences, a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile? Yes by Rabbinic halacha you are not a Jew. But what is really a Jew? As Paul says the Jews have an advantage because they were given the oracles of God. If both Jew and Gentile have an equal standing before God, doesn't Rabbinic halacha go against that? Jew is referred to the circumcision and Gentile is referred to the uncircumcision. Both have an equal standing with God and are One in Messiah, whether circ or uncirc. So the big pitcure to be honest, does it really matter? Does Rabbinic halacha say that it does matter? If it does that that would be an offense to the cross? These are questions and again not to promote or criticize. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 1:10:36 GMT -8
When I told my parents not too long ago that I am a believer and follower of Yeshua they told me, unquote, if you believe in Jesus then you are not Jewish. Now my parents are 'reformed' Jews, secular. Now when I told them it's by His Spirit that is compelling me to keep His Commandments, they were at a lost for words.
I realized that this way of thinking is so ingrained that it doesn't matter what 'sect' of Judaism you belong to.
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 1:25:54 GMT -8
The says that ALL fall short of the glory of God. I mean is disobedience judged by what the weight of the command that is broken? I don't know myself. But to say because we are observant and Christians aren't is stretching it. observance is imperfect this side of the ressurection. I know many Spirit filled Christians. They don't keep the Sabbath, the don't keep Kosher, etc, etc. But they bare some good fruit. Are they saved? I would say so. Now what does saved mean? There will be rewards in Heaven. This is where I think most Christians miss. With our Western mindsets we have an impression of eternal life and eternal punishment. Do I think Christians who don't keep will not go to Heaven? Instead of eating at the banquet table for eternity with Yeshua, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and many others which is the reward, those might be living in Spain and won't have that opportunity. This doesn't mean that they will be thrown in the Lake of Fire for eternity. We will be rewarded as such. 'Depart from Me you workers of iniquity' doesn't mean that the person is going to 'fry' for eternity. Instead of sitting with the King that person maybe mopping the floors. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Aug 1, 2007 2:53:13 GMT -8
Hello all, thanks for all your comments and discussion of the post. I have been re-reading the book of Acts and trying to get a handle on what was going on. I am intending also to read some books by Geza Vermes, so I can become more educated on the Second Temple period. These are my thoughts thus far. The apostle Paul was working cross-culturally. He was dealing with ignorance and bigotry from both sides. There was this massive influx of Gentiles coming into the faith, as had been prophesied in Hebrew scripture would happen. As was only natural, that change created lots of conflict. From what I can determine, Paul was saying (to "the Jews") not to harrass these new converts to the faith of Abraham, Issac and Jacob to change everything overnight, and not to ask or expect them to become culturally "Jewish" in every way, especially in the very particular ways some specific groups demanded. Because he was bringing so many gentiles to the faith, and bringing them into contact with some of the traditional Jewish cultural groups, there were some repercussions. Think about what would happen in a traditional white protestant church, say in the 1950's, if a very active church member suddenly had brought a huge group of African-American converts to church. Paul DID NOT bring uncircumcised into the Temple. But he was accused of it, even though all he did was be seen on the streets in the company of some gentiles. He WAS NOT telling the Jews to stop circumcising their sons, on to stop following either Mosaic law OR practicing the customs. But he was accused of doing that. The thing he was doing, was separating customs derived from cultural norms, from actual commandments. It was difficult to get that across to people who just could not think cross-culturally. If you have only lived in one cultural group your whole life and only spoken one language, it is difficult to comprehend this, difficult to think this way. Poor Paul, I feel sorry for the guy, all he was trying to do was share the gospel outside of the Hebraic world, and he got in all kinds of trouble because they did not understand back home what he was doing or why he was doing it. There was at the time at least some belief by some groups that salvation was by works. How widespread that belief was is a matter of conjecture at this point, but that doctrine was fought against by Paul. To those who had not been brought up culturally "Jewish", and/or who were ethnically not of Hebraic origin, or at least not Hebraic enough genetically to count with whoever was counting at the time, he was saying that you are part of the commonweatlh of Israel by faith in Yeshua. So somehow, in some respect at least, genetics, family tree, and even your cultural upbringing did not matter. It was no longer, after knowing Messiah, a matter of grave importance, no longer something to feel self-righteous pride in because you had the "right" blood line or upbringing, and no longer something to be ashamed of that you did not possess these things. I know the Bible does talk about the "family tree" a great deal, but at this point I am not sure how this all fits together.
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 1, 2007 3:05:48 GMT -8
The thing I don't see is how they can be saved and not be members of the house. Of course, I've been questioning the doctrine of an eternal hell, which is the foundation of the modern concept of salvation, so I'm not even sure that my question applies. Well, if we look at the scriptures which state that salvation is not obtained by works of law, but by faith, how do you exclude them? On the other hand, if they are saved, what is the penalty for ignoring the of G-d and His mitzvot? Which scriptures are those? T. Sha'ul said that the grace was not obtained by work. But then Ya'aqov HaTzaddiq said that faith without works was dead. We know that a blessing comes with the , but then I've seen Christians who are extremely blessed. How do we reconcile those facts? I might agree. They do keep some of the Ten Words, at least. The bare minimum is like the starting place, to me. He told the rich young ruler "then take up your cross and follow me." So it's like step one on a journey to full observance. I don't have any idea.
|
|