|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 3:23:59 GMT -8
Good post. I have heard the term ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness. Ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness means that they believed they were righteous ones because they were Israelites. Not because of works but because of ethnicity. In other words you had to be a Jew. The thinking of the 1st century was ‘I don’t keep the Law( ) to earn salvation, I keep it because I’m already a covenant member’. ‘I keep the Law( ) because that is what is expected of a covenant member’or ‘I am covenantly bound to be faithful to God’. Question then. If because of Yeshua's sacrifice the 'wall of separation' has been torn down, what does that actually mean? The 'Mystery of the Gospel' was/is that Gentiles may remain uncircumcised Gentiles and still have equal standing before God, and receive full inheritance as sons, with Jews. They are not strangers and aliens to the covenants of promise and to the commonwealth of Israel. If that is the case then what does equal standing mean? I mean if Gentiles have equal standing before God, and receive full inheritance as sons, with Jews. They are not strangers and aliens to the covenants of promise and to the commonwealth of Israel then why couldn't Paul bring uncirc into the Temple? Now I heard another perspective from a commentary about 'adding to nor taking away from what I tell you'(UNQUOTE).... God said in Deut not to add or take away. This doesn't mean that He can or cannot add or take away, this is directed to man. Let's say this perspective is true. Paul had revelations from God Himself. This is not something Paul came up with on his own. Looking at this from this perspective could this be God adding or taking away? Not man but God Himself making [can't find the right word] through the revelations of man, like Paul and the Apostle's? Because in the as an example it says a circ male must eat the Passover and an uncirc male must not eat it. How far does this equal standing go? Does it just pertain to salvation and imputed righteousness? If this is the case can an uncirc Gentile remain uncirc. Let's look at this from a 1st century perspective now. OK the Apostle's through the Holy Spirit said that the Gentiles are saved in the same manner as us, by faith. This was evidenced by the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles. Am I correct here? Now we have saved Gentiles attending the congregations on the Sabbath. Some 'God fearers' have always went, like Cornelius as an example. Again according to an uncirc male cannot eat the Passover. So as I said before what does this equal standing before God really mean? Can a Gentile remain uncirc, follow the requirements in Acts 15 and still have an equal standing before God? My point is also what then is the relationship for Jews and Gentiles to . We know because of faith, and not the , that both Jews and Gentiles have an equal standing with God. Am I correct or off base here? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 5:01:13 GMT -8
Here's another thought in a 1st century perspective.
I'm a Jew in the Diaspora. Many Gentiles in my town are coming to faith in Yeshua and are receiving the Holy Spirit.
I happen to always sit next to Cornelius every Sabbath. He worships the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Yeshua. He's invited my family over to his house many times and has served kosher meals. I am not sure he keeps kosher himself but from being in the synagogue for sooo long he knows I won't eat anything that God said is unclean.
So for 5, 10, or even 20 years I've been fellowshipping with ALL in my syngogue in the Disapora and especially my friend Cornelius.
Now Cornelius in his 5, 10 or even 20 years in the synagogue never got circumcised. Why? Maybe because he's a Roman, I don't know. He also hasn't progressed from the halacha that the Jerusalem Council came up with. Every Passover although he participates to a certain extent because he's not circ he can't eat the Passover.
When it's time to make our pilgramage to Jerusalem Cornelius is always with us for his love of God. (Where does Cornelius fit into Temple worship?)
He loves the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and is filled with the Spirit of God. He gives to the poor and is very compassionate in our town to the poor and widows and the like.
Now with Cornelius not progressing further than what the Jerusalem Council declared....or progressing to maybe close to where I am.
What is Cornelius' 'position' with God?
Let's take Jack a Gentile believer too in our synagogue. He has gotten circ and has progressed in the commandments much more than Cornelius.
Is Jack's position any different than Cornelius' before God because he progressed more?
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:13:36 GMT -8
They say that, but you have not offered what they maintain as their defense for this. I would be interested in knowing.
Are you saying this is their defense for not keeping the Sabbath, and for eating unclean?
I am not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:17:39 GMT -8
They say that, but you have not offered what they maintain as their defense for this. I would be interested in knowing. Are you saying this is their defense for not keeping the Sabbath, and for eating unclean? I am not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Shalom, Yitzchak No Yitzchak I'm not saying that this is their defense. I'll ask you is necessary for salvation? If not what is the for then? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:18:26 GMT -8
Marc,
I await your response regarding the 1st century perspective.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:19:42 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 We don't follow Rabbinic halakha and this is why both Nachson and myself responded in the way we did. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:24:53 GMT -8
Marc, I await your response regarding the 1st century perspective. Shalom, Yitzchak That's a good question, where do you think we should start? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:27:10 GMT -8
Marc, I await your response regarding the 1st century perspective. Shalom, Yitzchak Actually Yitzchak, I believe I might have started, scroll up a bit and look at my story with Cornelius. Might be way off base or not. In the meantime I'll ask you is necessary for salvation? If not what is the for then? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:32:10 GMT -8
OK Disobedience is disobedience. Stretching what? I simply asked some questions. I made no allusions. If, as you say, observance is imperfect this side of the resurrection, then why observe? Do you somehow believe that Yeshua gave the only for pre-resurrection observance? I was not making any statements regarding Christians. I have been there. My questions have been regarding the possible distinction between those that recognize the "commonwealth of Israel" and those that don't. I am leaning toward the notion that only those who accept the concept of the "commonwealth of Israel" can be subject to its Law. I would agree that most Christians are too heavenly minded, and not focused enough on the fact that G-d intends to establish His kingdom on earth. However, I am not questioning who is going to heaven or not. As I stated, my questions were not about eternal reward of punishment. Interesting choice of words, but how exactly did you come to this conclusion based on the questions I asked? Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:35:21 GMT -8
OK Disobedience is disobedience. Stretching what? I simply asked some questions. I made no allusions. If, as you say, observance is imperfect this side of the resurrection, then why observe? Do you somehow believe that Yeshua gave the only for pre-resurrection observance? I was not making any statements regarding Christians. I have been there. My questions have been regarding the possible distinction between those that recognize the "commonwealth of Israel" and those that don't. I am leaning toward the notion that only those who accept the concept of the "commonwealth of Israel" can be subject to its Law. I would agree that most Christians are too heavenly minded, and not focused enough on the fact that G-d intends to establish His kingdom on earth. However, I am not questioning who is going to heaven or not. As I stated, my questions were not about eternal reward of punishment. Interesting choice of words, but how exactly did you come to this conclusion based on the questions I asked? Shalom, Yitzchak Slow down Yitzchak. We're having a discussion here. my intentions were NOT to criticize your posts or come against your posts now. Let's lighten up a little. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:37:39 GMT -8
That's a good question.
I can only speak for myself. I felt compelled to keep the oracles of God that were given to my ancestors. Knowing that I was a Jew and felt obligated and compelled by the Holy Spirit, that's the short version.
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:38:07 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. You make some interesting points. Do you believe that anyone who comes to faith is part of the "commonwealth of Israel" even if they are unaware what the responsibilities of being an heir and citizen entails? I am not speaking of the new believer that is learning, but a Christian who has had the "commonwealth" principle explained to them, and yet rejects it for a different government. Keep in mind please, and this is addressed to all on this thread, I am not condemning anyone, I just think this is a challenging subject to discuss that opens up many topics of discussion. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 8:38:26 GMT -8
That's a good question. I can only speak for myself. I felt compelled to keep the oracles of God that were given to my ancestors. Knowing that I was a Jew and felt obligated and compelled by the Holy Spiri and that I wasn't living up to it., that's the short version. Marc
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:46:00 GMT -8
Marc, I am not upset, and very slow. I just thought that some of my questions were not being fully explored, and you were moving to a completely different subject regarding observance for salvation. I am trying to explore the possible distinctions between the "commonwealth of Israel" and the "Church". To me there are distinctions, and I was interested in hearing other perspectives. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 8:50:13 GMT -8
That's a good question. I can only speak for myself. I felt compelled to keep the oracles of God that were given to my ancestors. Knowing that I was a Jew and felt obligated and compelled by the Holy Spirit, that's the short version. Marc OK. Well this speaks to one of the other questions that I asked, and you alluded to in your story above. If there is a minimum level of observance, and one is not compelled to learn further, then how do we defend One Law for all? Do you think all Jews should feel obligated and compelled since the was commanded to be observed, or do you believe that this side of the resurrection that changes? Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|