Accepted Scripture

[messimom]

I just wanted to say thank you to Rick and Mark for bringing us back down to earth for a bit here. I have been closely following this thread, but have had nothing to add. So many of you have such awesome resources and understanding of the scriptures that all I can do is try to take it in. And many times I need to reread a post because it initially goes about 500 miles over my head! One of the most interesting things I have noted in becoming observant and searching the scriptures in that light is that the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn. Its like opening a door and expecting to find the answer, when you may find the answer, but along with that are five more doors, and five more behind each of those and it just goes on infinitely. Wow what did I get myself into?? Is there an IQ cut off for this stuff?? Help! Where's the remedial room??? I'm going back to fingerpainting.....

Shalom to all

Messimom

[Chizuk Emunah]

Nobody ever accused Philo of being anything other than a religious Jew in the diaspora, and yet he also makes extensive use of allegory from the , similar that used by Sha'ul.

I'll have to check that out. I wasn't necessarily stating that Sh'aul was not observant, but that I was having troubling reconciling certain parts of his letters. I will however, do more digging.

Yeshua often introduced ideas from original intent or historical background that were not explicit in the text.

Similarly, Sha'ul often brought out ideas that had been introduced by rabbinic commentators. For instance, his citation of Habakkuk 2.4 actually derives from a Talmud passage, Makkot 24. If one reads this passage from the Talmud, the reference in Romans 1.17 takes on a whole new meaning.

Agreed. It is very apparent that Yeshua often quoted the Oral in his teachings. I have found that study of Rabbinic works (Midrashim, Mishna, and Talmud) have proved invaluable in understanding the Scriptures.

to evangelise the children of Israel who don't know Yeshua

I'm not entirely comfortable with the term "evangelize". It makes it sound like our brothers and sisters are heathens who need to be converted. This is definitely not the case. What really needs to happen is for the Messianic Community to establish an organization who's express purpose is to reach out to them with the message of the true Moshiach while refuting the image of the false one.

Christians will merely regard us as cranks

They already do. The mainstream attitude is that we are "under bondage" by choosing to observe .

and Jews will see us as just one more fractious Christian denomination.

To our Jewish brothers, a Christian is a Christian regardless of what denomination they belong to. And, they regard Messianic Judaism as just another subset of Christianity. A Christian religion with "jewish trappings" if you will. It is up to us who are truly observant to come together and counter this negative image.

Many have been studying their little hearts out, but doing it through Chrisian filters, not seeing the truth. I believe it takes YHVH to open one's eyes. I believe that the Ruach is hugely involved in the -observant movement.

Agreed!

In fact, I would go farther, and say that we cannot properly understand Messiah without both the Written Scriptures AND an understanding of the rabbinic definitions for the Messianic expectation. There are no sticky notes in the Hebrew Bible announcing, "This is a messianic passage!" We are dependent upon the rabbis to tell us which passages were considered Messianic in the first century.

Agreed.

I used to enjoy the debate between our perspective and that of the Church (loosely defined). I haven't much time for it anymore. If they refuse to consider that all Scripture is inspired and consistent, then we disagree on the foundational premise whereby we each will validate our argument.

I too am tired of contstantly arguing over this. If they don't accept the same Scriptures that I do, then how can I validate my argument? (rhetorical question btw)

That's why I consider it quite important to learn the original languages. If you are dependent upon English translations, then you will tend to go on hunts for supporting wording. But if you know how to use a lexicon, and are familiar with the syntax of the original languages, then you are able to do your own original research.

I always prefer to do my study in the original languages.

However, there is a simple solution. The Greek language does not make use of the English comma, this was added by the translators. Obviously to uphold thier own theology. This is not uncommon either. If you simply move the comma back a single space it then makes sense, and would read:

(Luke 23:43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise."

This makes perfect sense now doesn't it? Especially when you take into consideration the statement the thief made just prior to Yeshua's comment to him:

Good insight achi!

We read the Scriptures (speaking of my own fellowship) on three levels. There is the (the Five books of Moses) which is Scripture- wholly inspired, directly from Adonai.

The second level is the rest of what we consider Canon: the remaining 61 books found in most Bibles. These we consider commentary under the direct superintendance of Adonai.

The third level is tradition and Talmud or human commentary, which has merit so long as it lines up consistently with . I've even quoted Matthew Henry on ocassion, prefacing it that even Caiaphas got it right once.

That is an excellent way to break it down Mark! I like it!

One of the most interesting things I have noted in becoming observant and searching the scriptures in that light is that the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn.

Very true.

I'm going back to fingerpainting.....

[Pioneer]

May I say it another way? Without PaRDeS we are stuck with a synoptic gospel! "general view of the whole of a subject."

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Yikes

This thread is getting out of control. It has become a mess of various topics that should be handled in their respective threads. I am assuming that the subject should be what scripture should be accepted. But, I believe that it is a bad question from the beginning and comes dangerously close to violating the forum guidelines as many are beginning to advocate the idea that parts of the scripture as contained in the Brit Chadashah are not valid (I am not accusing any one particular person) which is in and of itself advocating something unscriptural (violation of forum rules). I would like to address a few comments in this thread...

I have a great deal of respect for Pioneer really. We just yell at each other alot. LOL
Neither of us hold grudges, and we have been yelling at each other for over a year now.

We all need to be mindful of the following passages as we have our discussions here on the forum….

“Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don't argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear.” – 2Timothy 2:14

“Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for building up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.” – Ephesians 4:29

Rather than wade through a whole thread can you just answer my questions here?

Sorry, we must keep the discussions in their respective areas. Feel free to read the thread and respond…

I suppose I sound somewhat ambiguous regarding my own stance on Sha'ul. At the end of the day, I regard his writings as perfectly consonant with established rabbinic methodology of his day, and in accordance with the , as understood in the Second Temple era. He does include a half-dozen passages, or so, that have been abused by those who are not familiar with rabbinic interpretive approaches, including Pardes. But that does not diminish the value of his writings for those of us who are more trained in that methodology. So, I accept his letters as authoritative for faith and practice, but I also interpret his words according to the plain meaning of the , and question any interpretation that would violate the words of the .

Amein v'amein, this represents the official view of this forum.

Wow! I just spent the last 30 or 40 minutes reading through this thread and actually had to get a pad of paper to jot down the different subjects that have been touched.

Ya, me too. This thread will be locked do to the nature of the discussion and because it has become a combination of several discussions that should be taking place in their own threads. Also note, that if I find any websites being advertised on this forum that advocates parts of the Brit Chadashah (New Test.) as not being valid in a believer's life...they will be removed.

I hope all understand. If any are confused, please reread the forum rules.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel