Netzarim?

[Blake]

Is anyone familiar with this movement? It seems he has restored the mini-sanhedrin (with a paquid and everything) the early Church in Jeruselum used as its organization and is fully excepted as a legitimate synagogue by the Orthodox community, though professing a belief in Rebi Y'hoshua.

Here is their website Link removed by Admin.

What does everyone think of them?

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I have seen this website before and this individual rejects Messianic Judaism and rejects much of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant Writings) as well. I do not reccomend this organization to anyone. He certainly does not represent a legitimate sanhedrin. A good lie is one that has a bunch of truths with a lesser portion of lies. While it is true that the writings of the Brit Chadashah were not compiled until much later after Yeshua's death, they were maintained by oral transmition. The oral transmition method was highly effective and was the same used in the compilation of the Talmud. As I find this link possibly damaging to a new believer, it will be removed shortly after discussion has concluded.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Blake]

I've always doubted the legitamacy of Paul, his writings just don't seem conducive to Judaism. Some may disagree but I can't denounce them for not excepting the entire new testament. He is excepted by the orthodox community, which is something no other Yehoshua professing sect has done.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Of course, as stated several times in the past...this forum is not a place to teach people that Sha'ul's (Paul's) writings are not valid...Please respect this rule. Sha'ul's writings are truth and are completely valid. Furthermore, many "orthodox" P'rushim (Pharisees) during Yeshua's day rejected Him and His claims...Of course, many wanted to be accepted by the P'rushim of His day...But, of course, people have always had to choose between truth and non-truth. The apostles of Yeshua are witness that Sha'ul spoke the truth, but that these truths are hard to be understood by many (it seems including yourself).

This man and his ministry (for which you provided a link) reject much of the Good News presented in the Brit Chadashah. If no discussion takes place on this thread in the next week...the link will be removed soon as it violates the forum rules. Please respect the guidelines set forth by this forum in the future.

Todah,

Reuel

[Yahs_child]

I only looked at the site a minute because I looked at the Muslim link and it said the Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same god.

I do not believe that, allah is not YHWH

[Blake]

Yeshua was definately not a Sadducee because he believed in angels, he was not nearly as mystic as the Essenes so that means that Yeshua himself was a Pharisee, the ancestor movement of todays orthodox judaism. Nicodemus and other Pharisees followed Yeshua. Paul even identified himself as a pharisee and Yeshua commanded:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2,3 KJV)

Yeshua commanded his followers to keep the teachings of the Pharisees, so for a Messianic group to be truly legitamate wouldn't they have to be excepted by the orthodox community and the early Nazarenes in first century were?

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2,3 KJV)

[Yitzchak]

From their website:

"Those who claim to follow Ribi Yehoshua but aren't accepted by any recognized authority in the same community in which Ribi Yehoshua lived and interacted — the Orthodox (Perushim) community and batei- k'neset — are deceivers described in Rev. 2:9 & 3:9, foisting Displacement Theology and a misojudaic, antinomian, counterfeit messiah, playing an insidious game of 'pretend Judaism' — producing pretend salvation!"

This says it all, which by the way is false. We see very clearly that Yeshua, and his Talmidim were not readily accepted by the Sanhedrin in the Brit Chadasha.

On the subject of Rav Shaul (Paul) and his writings. the issue really becomes one of mistranslation by the Greek translators. In almost every case where there is some type of seemingly irreconcilable problem with his writings, one only has to put them into their proper context, and the problem disappears.

I recommend very highly the latest book by Dan Gruber, called:

"Copernicus and the Jews"

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Blake]

G'd hardened the hearts of leaders during Yehoshua's lifetime because the sacrifice had to be offered up. The wicked High Priest was used as an instrument of our salvation and placed the sacrifice on the Tree of Calvary just as the his office required by the . If the Sanhedrin and High Priest had not had Moschiach crucified we would be doomed to hell.
Remember that the High Priest unconsciously prophesied the saving sacrifice of Moschiach:

nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. (ASV)

It was all part of G'd's plan. If Israel has killed its prophets in the past (which she has) does that nullify the fact that she is the chosen nation? No, and neither does it nullify the system of the Orthodox Beit Dien or Sanhedrin.

Do you realize only Hellenists Reform and Reconstructionist except Messianic Jews as legitamate? These people also consider Judaic-Pagans and JUdaic Buddhists! We believe in the precisely as layed out in the and expounded in the Talmud, just as the Orthodox which is the only legitamate form of Judaism.

[Yitzchak]

blake said:

G'd hardened the hearts of leaders during Yehoshua's lifetime because the sacrifice had to be offered up. The wicked High Priest was used as an instrument of our salvation and placed the sacrifice on the Tree of Calvary just as the his office required by the . If the Sanhedrin and High Priest had not had Moschiach crucified we would be doomed to hell.
Remember that the High Priest unconsciously prophesied the saving sacrifice of Moschiach:

nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. (ASV)

It was all part of G'd's plan. If Israel has killed its prophets in the past (which she has) does that nullify the fact that she is the chosen nation? No, and neither does it nullify the system of the Orthodox Beit Dien or Sanhedrin.

Do you realize only Hellenists Reform and Reconstructionist except Messianic Jews as legitamate? These people also consider Judaic-Pagans and JUdaic Buddhists! We believe in the precisely as layed out in the and expounded in the Talmud, just as the Orthodox which is the only legitamate form of Judaism.

The Orthodox the only legitimate form of Judaism? How can any form that denies Messiah be legitimate?

Messianic Judaism does not need to be recognized by those who deny Messiah. We are merely called to follow HaShem, and His as Yeshua did.

The Rabbi's at Yavneh who started a new religion, which is what is now known as modern Rabbinic Judaism is not what Yeshua came for.

It was Avinu who provided a sacrifice that He required for our salvation, and it is just as it was with Avraham when HaShem provided the sacrifice. The High Priest might have spoken prophetically, but it was not he who offered up this sacrifice.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Rick]

Messianic Judaism does not need to be recognized by those who deny Messiah. We are merely called to follow HaShem, and His as Yeshua did.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Okay, time to jump in and get dirty......

this individual rejects Messianic Judaism and rejects much of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant Writings) as well.

Well, we have to look at a couple things here.
Is he rejecting a Judaism that accepts Yehoshua ben-Yosef as Mashiach, or is he rejecting Christianity that is re-packaged as Judaism? I believe the latter to be the case. Many of those affiliated with Messianic Judaism (present company excluded, but we are the minority) are practicing a faith that is Christianity with a Jewish veneer. Secondly, in regards to the comments on the Ketuvim Sh'liachim, after doing some research, I have found that the Diatessaron was used as the standard Gospel text in the liturgy of the Syrian Church for two centuries after it was written in 175 C.E., and it only includes the B'sorah Tovot. In addition the Syrian Church also rejected John's Revelation and the Pastoral epistles. They were only included as Scripture in the middle of the sixth century. And no-one views the Syrian Church as illegitimate (apart from their present theology).

So, with all that being said, I think it would be too quick to judge someone because they don't include a certain book in their beliefs. As long as they meet the minimum requirements of belief in the and that Yehoshua ben-Yosef is indeed the promised Mashiach, I don't see a major conflict. The same holds true for the Karaites, the Barley adherents, and other Orthodox Jews.

I've always doubted the legitamacy of Paul, his writings just don't seem conducive to Judaism. Some may disagree but I can't denounce them for not excepting the entire new testament.

I've been down that road before. I recently read that some of his letters may have been written in his name, and not by Sh'aul himself. This certainly was not uncommon, even within Judaism.

My position is that Sh'aul was indeed a observant Pharisee who lived and taught , but can be very difficult to understand. Part of the problem is that we only have parts of his letters and not the whole background of the story from each of his letters. Thus we are left to decipher his intent and meaning in each of them, which can lead to a misunderstanding.

Furthermore, many "orthodox" P'rushim (Pharisees) during Yeshua's day rejected Him and His claims...

This is true. However, we do have evidence that after Yehoshua ben-Yosef's death many P'rushim came to believe that Yehoshua ben-Yosef was the Mashiach. In fact, there are cases in which the P'rushim defended the Netzarim against the Tzeddukim (in front of the Sanhedrin).

Yeshua was definately not a Sadducee because he believed in angels, he was not nearly as mystic as the Essenes so that means that Yeshua himself was a Pharisee, the ancestor movement of todays orthodox judaism. Nicodemus and other Pharisees followed Yeshua. Paul even identified himself as a pharisee

Yes, it seems probable that Yehoshua ben-Yosef most closely identified with the P'rushim. He most certainly was concerned with their interpretation of halacha. However, when Yehoshua ben-Yosef sent out his Talmidim, the first place he sent them was to the Essene Community. And really, it made perfect sense. His cousin Yochanan The Immerser was an Essene, as were Kefa and his brother. Also, if you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, you will see that Yeshua fit perfectly with the type of Mashiach that they were expecting.

Yes, there were several notable P'rushim that were believers of Yehoshua ben-Yosef while he lived, but the real turning point came after his death. There were more P'rushim that believed in him after his death than while he was alive.

While it is true that the writings of the Brit Chadashah were not compiled until much later after Yeshua's death, they were maintained by oral transmition.

If you're referring to the B'sorah Tovot, then I most definitely agree with you. I'm not so sure about the other books. I believe they were written down before being passed along orally.

Yeshua commanded his followers to keep the teachings of the Pharisees, so for a Messianic group to be truly legitamate wouldn't they have to be excepted by the orthodox community and the early Nazarenes in first century were?

Not entirely. The Netzarim have not been accepted by the P'rushim (and later Orthodox) because of three cataclysmic events in the 1st Cent. :
1. The destruction of the Temple and Yerushalayim in 70 CE.
2. The addition of a curse added to the Shemoneh Esrei in 90 CE, which had the effect of casting them out of the Synagogues.
3. When Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the Mashiach in 132 CE.

We see very clearly that Yeshua, and his Talmidim were not readily accepted by the Sanhedrin...

This is correct because many members of the Sanhedrin were Tzeddukim.

Do you realize only Hellenists Reform and Reconstructionist except Messianic Jews as legitamate? These people also consider Judaic-Pagans and JUdaic Buddhists! We believe in the precisely as layed out in the and expounded in the Talmud, just as the Orthodox which is the only legitamate form of Judaism.

That's not entirely accurate. Only a handful of people from those sects advocate recognizing Messianic Judaism as a legitimate form of Judaism. As for the only form of legitimate Judaism, only a Judaism which accepts as eternal and Yehoshua ben-Yosef as Mashiach can be considered 100% legitimate. Now, can one be Orthodox in practice and still believe that Yehoshua ben-Yosef is the Mashiach? Absolutely! I am living proof of that.

How can any form that denies Messiah be legitimate?

They can't if they are denying the true Mashiach. If they are merely denying the false Mashiach
(the Torahless One), then they cannot be faulted.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2,3 KJV)

The text speaks of the seat of Moshe representing ...it speaks of keeping as they taught the people to do so, but they themselves on many occasions broke it by their traditions and halachah. Should we follow in that example? Of course not. The text itself warns us about doing this! If we were to abide by the teachings of Perushim without fail, why then did Yeshua and His disciples constantly fall in violation of such teachings as seen through out the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant)?

Just a few examples would be healing on Sabbath, picking heads of grain while walking through a field, Perushim halachah dealing with hand washings and fasting...I could go on and on. But, most importantly the official halachah of the Perushim and modern Rabbinic Judaism today mandates the rejection of the Biblical Yeshua....yes, the observant Yeshua as found in the B'surot tovot (Good News/Gospels).

Just so there is no confusion in regards to the writings of Sha'ul (Paul), I believe the ones we have are authentically from him and not in imposter and this is the official stance of this forum.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[Blake]

I think the conflict about healing on sabbath and what have you were because Rebi Yehoshua seems t have based his beliefs on slightly more liberal teachers who were not yet excepted by all Pharisees yet.
In later times we can see these views were excepted into the halacha of the Pharisees, but at this early time I don't think oral halacha was completely solidified.