|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 1, 2007 8:53:50 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 I have to disagree with the idea that we cannot keep perfectly. That is a teaching of the church which is erronious. Now, this side of the Temple being restored it is obviously impossible to keep all of the . However, Deuteronomy 30 tells us that the is not far away from us, that it is near us, in our hearts and mouthes that we may do it. Luke 1 gives us an example by telling us that Yokhanan's father was "blameless" according to the . Shalom, Nachshon
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 1, 2007 8:59:29 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 I have this nagging question at the back of my mind: it is required that we be talmidim of Ribi Yehoshu'a, correct? But a Talmid cannot do other than what he sees his Rabbi doing. It is enough that he should be like his Rabbi. How do we know them? By their fruit, which is works of the . The final mitzwa that R. Yehoshu'a gave the rich young ruler was "take up your cross and follow me" which is a requirement for redemption, and clearly implies growing in observance. Is it possible that Christians started on the road to redemption, but have stopped walking in it? Keffa HaTalmid said that we should "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" and doesn't that mean continuing in the path that we started? Is it possible that the Christians were "saved" initially, but have "fallen from grace" as the author of 'Ivrim put it? Shalom, Nachshon
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 9:02:03 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 I have to disagree with the idea that we cannot keep perfectly. That is a teaching of the church which is erronious. Now, this side of the Temple being restored it is obviously impossible to keep all of the . However, Deuteronomy 30 tells us that the is not far away from us, that it is near us, in our hearts and mouthes that we may do it. Luke 1 gives us an example by telling us that Yokhanan's father was "blameless" according to the . Shalom, Nachshon Amein. So, I will ask you the same questions. Is there a distinction between the "commonwealth" and the "church"? Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 1, 2007 9:09:04 GMT -8
I have to disagree with the idea that we cannot keep perfectly. That is a teaching of the church which is erronious. Now, this side of the Temple being restored it is obviously impossible to keep all of the . However, Deuteronomy 30 tells us that the is not far away from us, that it is near us, in our hearts and mouthes that we may do it. Luke 1 gives us an example by telling us that Yokhanan's father was "blameless" according to the . Shalom, Nachshon Amein. So, I will ask you the same questions. Is there a distinction between the "commonwealth" and the "church"? Shalom, Yitzchak I think there must be. But the exact form of that distinction is unclear in my mind. See my above post.
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 1, 2007 9:14:38 GMT -8
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? This is why I have been thinking about the possible distinctions between the two groups. It is clear that when I debate many Christians regarding Eph 2 that they balk at the idea of the "commonwealth of Israel". They are confused by this concept, and confuse it with physical Israel. They do not even see the clear language of the verses making them heirs and fellow citizens. So, I have to assume that if they do not understand this concept, that one of two things are happening. The first is that all become part of the commonwealth, but some do not know they are in this commonwealth, and are walking in opposition to the Laws of the commonwealth and there must be some type of penalty. Or, that there exists two distinct entities. Now, I am not condemning the second entity called the "church", as I believe many of its members are not aware that there exists this "commonwealth". However, there are many who are being awakened, who are leaving this entity called the "church" and are coming in to the "commonwealth". Almost all of those coming out of the "church" have no problem following the Laws of the "commonwealth". As a matter of fact, they are excited about coming under the laws of the "commonwealth". Just my musings on the subject. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Aug 1, 2007 9:33:16 GMT -8
The reason for the confusion between the "Commonwealth/spiritual Israel" and the "Physical Israel" is that the church teaches about physical Israel as being the only Israel. Will the two become one, and if they do, when and how? Or will they always be separate?
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 10:52:52 GMT -8
I have to disagree with the idea that we cannot keep perfectly. That is a teaching of the church which is erronious. Now, this side of the Temple being restored it is obviously impossible to keep all of the . However, Deuteronomy 30 tells us that the is not far away from us, that it is near us, in our hearts and mouthes that we may do it. Luke 1 gives us an example by telling us that Yokhanan's father was "blameless" according to the . Shalom, Nachshon Amein. So, I will ask you the same questions. Is there a distinction between the "commonwealth" and the "church"? Shalom, Yitzchak That's what I meant to imply , this side of the Temple. We do the best we can, right? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 10:55:45 GMT -8
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? This is why I have been thinking about the possible distinctions between the two groups. It is clear that when I debate many Christians regarding Eph 2 that they balk at the idea of the "commonwealth of Israel". They are confused by this concept, and confuse it with physical Israel. They do not even see the clear language of the verses making them heirs and fellow citizens. So, I have to assume that if they do not understand this concept, that one of two things are happening. The first is that all become part of the commonwealth, but some do not know they are in this commonwealth, and are walking in opposition to the Laws of the commonwealth and there must be some type of penalty. Or, that there exists two distinct entities. Now, I am not condemning the second entity called the "church", as I believe many of its members are not aware that there exists this "commonwealth". However, there are many who are being awakened, who are leaving this entity called the "church" and are coming in to the "commonwealth". Almost all of those coming out of the "church" have no problem following the Laws of the "commonwealth". As a matter of fact, they are excited about coming under the laws of the "commonwealth". Just my musings on the subject. Shalom, Yitzchak Some good thoughts. What I see it was definately 'easier' for a Gentile to realize that when he/she believed in Yeshua he/she was automatically grafted into Israel in the early assemblies. Today it's much different. How can we as a Messianics help 'Christians' see it the same way as the early believers did? If it's a return to a pure and simple faith based upon having a living, vibrant and personal relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through the Messiah Yeshua then how can we get todays 'Christians' to see at as the early Gentile believers did? How did the early believers see it? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 11:06:28 GMT -8
Whatever it is God has willed this to happen.
I have heard a Messianic Rabbi refer to this. To paraphrase he said we are in a reverse 'Shaul'. Shaul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Today and for the past 2000 years it's reversed, that the Gentiles are bringing the Gospel to the Jews but in the wrong context. The Gentiles accpeted the Gospel more than the Jews and this is a fact. BUT God is VERY angry that the 'Church' has taken His gifts and messed things up with their false theologies. Sort of makes sense in a way and doesn't make sense in a way.
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Aug 1, 2007 13:52:50 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.) I know you don't Nachshon. EDIT: I used to align myself with the Netzarim in Ra'anana, but that was a long time ago. I now follow the teachings of my Rebbe, Rebbe Nachman m'Breslev.
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 1, 2007 23:22:09 GMT -8
Yitzchak can you elaborate on this?
Are referring to more of His return when He establishes His kingdom for eternity?
As you in another post 'christians' concepts of Heaven are different from the 'Hebraic' mindset because we're not going to Heaven because Heaven is going to come to Earth. 'Hebraically' man doesn't assend. Salvation is Yeshua descending. Yeshua comes down and saves. He brings Heaven with Him. And it is written that ALL will serve Him and keep the Law set out from Zion.
Here is a quote that I have seen:
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 4:07:43 GMT -8
Mark, Of course you know that explanation was not necessary, but I do appreciate it for the others that read our forums. I have become deeply concerned as of late regarding the as I have previously noted, the blur in distinction of callings between those born Jewish and those not. While, of course I realize the adoption, and the drawing near through the blood, which makes Gentiles both heirs and fellow citizens, there are still distinct callings in my reading of the scriptures. AS the "church" has been the assailant of this distinct calling for so long, it really is our responsibility in Messianic Judaism to safeguard this, whether Jew or grafted in. Otherwise there is the potential for a very subtle replacement taking place. Not intentional of course. Shalom, Yitzchak Hi Yitzchak, I don't want this to sound like it's nonchalant. From the looks of Acts and the Gospels Jews in the 1st century kept , whether it was Oral or written is not the issue... Jews kept . You have a 'country bumpkin' like Peter who was raised in and kept it and even said to the Lord "Not so Lord, I've never eaten anything unclean"(UNQUOTE) Is this assessment somewhat accurate? I mean to compare the Judaism we have today to the Judaism of the 1st century I believe you can't because it's alot more secular. There seemed to be alot of sects in the 1st century but I'll take an educated guess that if you were a Jew you were raised in at a young age and you kept it. Of course it was a theocratic society back then as well. When a Gentile came to faith in the God of Israel, Isaac and Jacob there was only synagogues to attend with the and Messiah being preached compared to today. I would find ot hard to believe that a Gentile would ask a Jew of that day "Why do you keep " compared to today. My point is in that day in the synagogues do you think was preached in the same manner as it is preached today in Messianic congregations? I would say no because as a Jew you wouldn't necessarily need to hear that. Am I on or off base here? With that being said the callings I believe were different in that day compared to today. Today you have alot of Jews that never kept , unlike the Jews of that day, and are returning to their faith. Get what I'm saying? Marc
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 2, 2007 4:15:31 GMT -8
I was gone for a day and a half and this thread has taken off into about four distinct different directions! I'd like to encourage each of you, as there are many related questions and discussions, if you feel like something you have wanted to further discuss has been skipped over, please start a new thread on that subject. To try and re-introduce an element of the discussion that has been passed over just leads to confusion.
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Aug 2, 2007 6:32:18 GMT -8
Okay Mark, just let me wrap up my thoughts. I don't know who told you that. If a person is born a Jew then they remain a Jew, regardless of what they believe. All the modern Hachamim are in agreement on this. I know. I'm just throwing up an additional warning. Yes, I would say that they are lost. The faith that they adhere to is not Judaism. It is directly rooted in Greek Hellenism. Jews in the church should be encouraged to do t'shuva and return to Judaism. The mitzvot are binding on all Jews. C*hristian Jews are still Jews, so we need to do kiruv and encourage t'shuva. The penalty for disobedience is up to HaShem to mete out. I believe that as long as they reach that starting point, they will merit a place in Olam HaBa. However, there can be no growth if they don't continue along the path to full observance. Umm... Not likely. A person who keeps kashrut and observes Shabbat (properly) is far more likely to be obeying the rest of the mitzvot than someone who doesn't keep the basics. There are some misconceptions here. First, salvation in Judaism is national and not individual. Second, when asked, Ribi Y'hoshua re-affirmed the principles of the . If a person desires to merit a place in Olam HaBa, they must keep the mitzvot. There are no two ways around it. To a certain extent, yes. A Jew should be careful of what he eats in the home of a non-Jew, or even a non-observant Jew. Otherwise, no. I attend a Chabad house and Goyim are welcome to come attend services, pray with us, and even eat with us. There is no exclusion there. And, I might add, this has been the case for centuries. How else do you explain that many non-Jews converted to Judaism, and many more became Righteous Gentiles during the days of the Roman Empire? In fact, Jewish proselyization was so influential that members of the Roman Senate became Righteous Gentiles, and members of the royal household converted! Not true. Halacha states that anyone who is a born a Jew remains a Jew irregardless of their beliefs. Nope, in fact we are to encourage non-Jews to fulfill their obligation as Righteous Gentiles. Umm... No. Paul actually said that. Actually, no it's not. D'varim 31 explicitly states that it is "not too far from us." And if we keep it in our hearts like we are commanded to do in the Sh'ma, then we are living perfect lives before HaShem. Of course we can't keep all the mitzvot since we aren't living in Eretz Yisrael and we don't have a Beit HaMikdash. But then again, not all the mitzvot are applicable to any one person. So with what spirit are they filled if they are not observing ? Exactly. Ya'akov HaTzaddik was re-inforcing the teaching of Ribi Y'hoshua. Judaism teaches that there are those who receive their blessings here, in Olam HaZeh, and that there are those who receive their blessings in Olam HaBa. David HaMelekh teaches us that "When the doers of wickedness { Torahlessness} blossom, it is to destroy them to eternity." So just because someone is prosperous, it does not mean that they are receving blessings from the . Which is exactly the point of halacha. HaShem gives the dayanim the authority to determine halacha (as according to D'varim 17), yet people reject it, and instead are willing to accept the word of Paul? What gives? Not quite. Of course a Righteous Gentile has an equal standing with a Jew before HaShem. This has always been the case. However, a Righteous Gentile is still not a Jew, and therefore the inheritance of the Jews, as the firsborn of HaShem, does not transfer to the Gentiles. Righteousness is not obtained by what you believe, but by what you do. This is the consistent theme throughout the Tanakh and as taught by Ribi Y'hoshua. So a righteous Jew and a righteous Gentile have equal standing before HaShem. I know that you are probably thinking in literal terms here, but replace the word circumcision with "conversion" since that was the real issue. Does a Gentile have to convert in order to merit a place in Olam HaBa. No, they do not. However, they do need to strive towards full observance, just a Jew does. That's what Netzarim halacha dictates. Yes. That's pretty clear. Pesach was given for Jews to observe, not for Goyim. So a person who wishes to participate in Pesach sacrifices (when the Beit HaMikdash is rebuilt) must be a Jew. A non-Jew is not permitted to participate. The makes this quite clear. I think you are somewhat confused because you see that there are historically different roles for Jews and Gentiles. And you are trying to reconcile this with the fact that both righteous Jews and Gentiles have an equal standing before HaShem. We each have separate roles. A Jew is the inheritor of the covenant with Avraham, and is to carry the light of to the Gentiles. A Gentile is to learn from the Jew and then go teach other Gentiles. A Gentile is also free to join the Jewish people and convert (thereby inheriting the covenant), but they are not obligated to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 7:48:24 GMT -8
I was gone for a day and a half and this thread has taken off into about four distinct different directions! I'd like to encourage each of you, as there are many related questions and discussions, if you feel like something you have wanted to further discuss has been skipped over, please start a new thread on that subject. To try and re-introduce an element of the discussion that has been passed over just leads to confusion. Thanks, Mark I have posted a new thread entitled: Commonwealth/Church:Two Distinct Entities? This thread can be found under "Practical Observance" As Mark stated, this discussion has been going in a lot of different directions, and so I thought I should make it its own, so we can continue to discuss this. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|