|
|
Post by alon on Sept 29, 2015 8:37:01 GMT -8
I'm sure many Jewish people have this same question. The answer is that because he was so difficult to understand; long winded to a fault, writing about what were very difficult subjects at the time; and being extremely smart and well educated ... his writings were an easy target for wicked men to twist and bend to their own evil ends. In other words they were going to attack the Jews anyhow because they were of ha satan and not of God; and ha satan hates the Jews. More than that, what a coup for him to attack the Jews in the name of God! Rav Sha'ul was just a handy excuse to mislead then whip up the masses into a frenzy of hatred. That this happened is a stain on Christianity that will last longer than the Nazi stain on Germany! It is not something I'm proud of in my Gentile heritage, but all I can do now is move forward from here. And it's an odd twist of fate that the road forward lads back to the 1st cen. CE where and how the apostles really worshiped. Another reason I am Messianic.
Dan C
edit: I should say I'm not that ashamed of this part of my heritage as I've always been pro Hebrew/Jewish/Israel (truth be told as much due to the works of Leon Uris as to the Bible, but there you have it ...  ).  for what someone before me did had nothing to do with my decision to become Messianic. God said it, I believe it, here I am. Simple. But Pauls letters contradict even each other. They espouse the law and other times criticise people for espousing it. There is a problem there.
2 Peter 3:16 (ESV) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
It would help if you gave the scriptures you think are in disagreement.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 30, 2015 8:09:39 GMT -8
Just to chime in because; this is not in reference to your posts John75 but a general observation based on my experiences.
Many who use Paul to argue against  -observance and the like aren't reading all of what he said. So much of the confusion can be cleared up if they read more than the one to three verses they zone in on.
For example, I have been taken to task about "observing days and months". However, if they were to read the whole passage, they would see that Paul is talking about observing manmade days and months. If they read the passage, it is the church that should be taken to task, not me. It s the church observing times set aside by men while not observing the times set aside by G-d . Paul is complicated to read, but people also seem to only hear what they want to hear sometimes. The combination of the two makes it that much more of a challenge. This is especially true for those of us raised in the midst of the bias and taught to see something so far from what Paul intended, he would likely be shocked that we could even consider it.
|
|
|
|
Post by smashingjerry on Oct 1, 2015 9:50:26 GMT -8
To answer this question I need to take you back to Acts 15; Act 15:1 And certain men coming down from Judea were teaching the brothers, "If you are not circumcised in the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Emphasis mine) The main question that the Jerusalem Council was "How are gentiles to be saved" not how should they behave. Some believers from Judea said that in order for the Gentiles to be saved they must be circumcised. This meant more than just the physical removal of the foreskin. It meant a formal "conversion" to Judaism, up to and including embracing the entire Oral Law (probably the law Peter had in mind when he referred to "a yoke... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear). We know of course that they were mistaken. Peter told the Council the story of the Roman Cornelius and his household of uncircumcised Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without formally converting to Judaism. This is the problem Paul/Saul was dealing with in Galatians. He is not saying to not obey . He is saying that being converted to Judaism will not save you. Only grace can do that. |
|
azaliah
Junior Member
Warning on post in My First Shabbat
Posts: 50
|
Post by azaliah on Oct 1, 2015 13:45:38 GMT -8
I simply can't understand from reading Paul's letters (or at least the letters traditionally attributed to him) can be excepted as scripture. Paul attacks circumcision constantly! He even goes as far as wishing those who insisted on gentile circumcision castrate themselves!!! Gal 5:12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Also, you say Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the whole of the (as they should) , while Paul said the opposite. Gal2: 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: I just can't reconcile Paul with the gospel of Yehoshua. I appreciate any input. Ok, well this is just one Hebrew's point of view, who is mostly ignorant (speaking of myself) but consider what you will, take what is good and ignore the rest. Lets examine what the King James says, 5:7 "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" 5:8 "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." 5:9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." 5:10 "I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." 5:11 "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased." 5:12 "I would they were even cut off which trouble you" So, reading it in english from the 1611, gives off the following idea to me, You guys were doing so good, what happened brah? This idea being put in your head doesn't come from Hashem. (I think this has to do with Pesach?) A little bit of sin, ruins the whole part. I trust Hashem will line you out and fix your head, but this dude who is causing your issues over this, whoever this dude is, you are going to have to just deal with his discrimination. So Bro...if I did teach persecution, why would they still persecute me (just a theory here, because he serves a risen savior, because I think that was the goal of those who were Judiazers (there was a word for it Alon said Ebionite? I think.) ? if this one this is resolved then would the fact they refuse Christ stop? I wish those dudes who bothered you, were cut off from troubling you. This is not an attempt to paraphrase scripture but rather explain how it reads to me, the intent seems clear. There were judaizers, requiring people to follow the Mosiac Law, post Salvation, and harassing people for not doing it. The issue I think Paul is expressing his displeasure is the people who are harassing his people intending to put the Mitzvot above the Mosiach, which was (and possibly still is) a problem with Messianic Jews I think mainly out of people trying to do the right thing, and shadim exploiting that confusion. Think about it, Hebrew or Non-Hebrew we all want to do the right thing by God, we know that the Law has not been "destroyed" how do we adhere to the law in the New Covenant? It's a question that is still argued today, and never forget the curse of every Christian, where there is always someone a little more pios than us other folk, who think we all serve the same Hashem, just some of us are more "special" than others, it's not just an MJ problem it's a problem all over, in fact MJ's may have the least of the problem where as the gentile christianity (Roman/Protestant) is divided in innumerable conventions and denominations, all of them truly having the idea they have it right, and others have it wrong. Imagine how frustating that must have been to an early apostle? Same as Paul, I was circumcised on the 8th day. I am really glad too, what if I was not? And I went to join a messanic Synagogue and they said, oh well you have to be circumcized, at 33 years old.....I would be greatly distraught, "Hashem, all I will give to you...but this, this is well....can you give me a sign or something?". It would be a difficult decision. Now as to the Lorena Bobbit, verse, let's examin it in Greek. ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς Ophelon kai apokosonta oi anastatountes hymas (sorry if my transliteration is horrible) ἀποκόψονται: Yea. that probably means dropping their voice a few octaves. Thats pretty intense. I do not believe Sha'ul is saying, hey if you circumcise your kids, or if you choose circumcision that he wants you to sing soprano, I think he was stating basically the people that were harassing his people about what he considered to be a trivial issue in comparison to the all important saving grace of Hashem through His son Yeshua, he wished those guys were all kraut and no brat. I would not take this personally, besides who knows to what level these people were harassing. Maybe they were stoning non-circumcised Christians, I dunno. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 1, 2015 16:02:13 GMT -8
... So, reading it in english from the 1611, ...
As to their "singing soprano," there was a pagan custom of the time which many of the early church fathers did, and that is of self emasculation. This was an extreme perversion and Rav Sha'ul was being highly disrespectful to the legalists here in comparing them with the pagans and the early church.
The Nots'rim had their problems in those early days, and even at least one major split. The Ebionites splintered from the Nots'rim in the late 1st cen, teaching among other things the denial of the deity of Yeshua, which is their defining characteristic.
However according to the writings of the church fathers the Nots'rim existed from the 1st through at least the 6th to 7th centuries CE; and they were in every way Jewish except for their acceptance of Yeshua as HaMoshiach. This includes their Gentile converts. They did not consider to be a burden, but a blessing. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I will refer you here for Rav Sha'ul's teachings on the law, as well as for just a few quotes from the early church fathers:-observant" rel="norewrite" target="_blank">theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3462/rav-shaul--observantAgain, as smashingjerry pointed out, the term "circumcision" here means the entire , probably including the Oral Tradition and all the hallachic rulings of the Rabbi's as well. This is what Yeshua taught against as these "laws" had gotten out of hand and were a fierce burden even to those raised as Jews- let alone an ignorant Gentile just coming to the faith.
Dan C
|
|
azaliah
Junior Member
Warning on post in My First Shabbat
Posts: 50
|
Post by azaliah on Oct 1, 2015 16:46:18 GMT -8
I have heard that term before, the prefix "Rav" what does that mean? Anyway, thank you kindly for responding I enjoyed digesting your post, though I do not completely understand all parts of it. I like the 1611, I don't know why, I suppose it's simply a matter of preference. Though I can readily agree than language is certainly not plain English. But yes, it was enlightening to see the entire context. Ok ill buy that, I am kinda ignorant of that, I did not come across the term until a week ago when some of my adopted family associated me with one, among other things....the concept was not foreign to me though. So, whats the term for a person who insists Goy follow the Mosiac/Talmudic law after Salvation? I Googled it, got nothing. Whats that Sir?  that is truly beautiful! Praise Hashem for it! For certain, I would like to make a post, that contains the core elements of my Messianic Halakhah as it applies to that, seeing as I have had no teacher besides Hashem Ruach Ha-Kodesh, of which my interpretation of may not always be flawless, so it would be good to get a MJ Rabbi, or just a learned person(s) take it apart and see what I am right or wrong on. Ok explained! I would love to learn more about that word and it's origin. Alrighty, I will check it out! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 1, 2015 17:59:15 GMT -8
"Rav" is short for Rabbi. It is a less formal term, which I use when addressing "Paul" because it humanizes him. The Greek redactors of Galations especially present him as cold and overbearing. I doubt this was the case, as he was a very successful evangelist (among other reasons).... So, whats the term for a person who insists Goy follow the Mosiac/Talmudic law after Salvation?
It's a variant spelling of the word Notsarim, also known as the Nazarenes:Act 24:5 (KJV) For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: The best suggestion I can make is that on 10 Oct we will be starting a new 1 year reading cycle of the . This is the same cycle as in Jewish synagogues around the world, and is what is meant by "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Both Jews and Meshiachim read these par'shot, or weekly readings. You can look up commentary on each par'shah under their appropriate scriptural headings on this forum. is our base both to learn and to which we compare all other scripture in order to test it. If a scripture disagrees with , (in reverse order of probability) either it is wrong, or it was wrongly translated, or our understanding is wrong.
Most of us do follow some Jewish traditions not found in . As long as they don't conflict with scripture and are not pagan in origin, traditions are ok. Most even do Thanksgiving, which is a Christian tradition and one very much in line with the Bible, as long as it doesn't replace observance of any commanded feast (Sukkot). And then there is halacha, the way we live out these instructions. Go to the Halacha Sub-section and see if your questions are there, then if not clear you can either (preferably) revive an old thread which tries to address your question; or you can open another thread if nothing exists. We'll try to help, and if necessary I'll see what the Rabbi says.
Dan C
|
|
azaliah
Junior Member
Warning on post in My First Shabbat
Posts: 50
|
Post by azaliah on Oct 2, 2015 18:11:44 GMT -8
Awesome thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Oct 2, 2015 21:29:40 GMT -8
Can we have some real discussion on the mitsvot in the Parshas? I would truly enjoy that. With the Talmudic texts that are applicable?
|
|
azaliah
Junior Member
Warning on post in My First Shabbat
Posts: 50
|
Post by azaliah on Oct 2, 2015 22:42:20 GMT -8
As I journey considering this Messianic Judaism, I cannot help but ask a few questions since someone brought up the Talmud. I have always been told, (I am not saying this) the Talmud was something that Non-Christian Jews, who were not indwelt with Ruach HaKodesh, created a convoluted recreation of a collection of the Oral Laws, after the death of Yeshua (by some guy named Maimodes? or something)in order to further distance the Jewish people from believing the Messiah, and essentially establish a fictitious priesthood, to replace the hard line rules of the Tanach, with watered down traditions of man." I was told this by someone who was not a great fan of Orthodox Jews, so I am in no way implying I have formed an opinion on this, instead I found a perfectly good opportunity to ask this set of questions. First, do you believe the Talmud has any spiritual significance to Jews who are saved? If so why? (a forum link will be fine because I am sure I am not the first person to ask this, or just Hey Az, go look here etc etc). Second, was the Talmud created by Jews who reject the Mosiach? Is that really true? Third, If the second question is true, is there a Messianic Talmud somewhere? Fourth, If the second question was true, do you also feel like if the Talmud is significant for the Redeemed Jew, then is there also other texts significant, like hmmmm, the deuterocanonical texts like Esdras....etc etc? Fifth, is there a heiarchy of Cannon, for example does the Talmud supercede the Tanach or Vice-Versa. Please understand I am not speaking with criticizing here, I cannot judge a thing I have never read. Currently I am forbidden from reading it by Hashem (not because I know it's bad but probably because I may not understand what I am reading and fall in to Heresy, all I know is I get a don't "do that feeling", whenever I consider reading it) but I don't know enough to make even the slightest hint of impiety from reading it, or applying it to ones life. I can tell you this, years ago after I left Messianic Judaism, when I began to consider eating Kosher, I would study things like how to speak and write in Hebrew, and I spent many days on the Judiasm101 web page, learning about traditions and such, thats where I came up with certain things like, I have no issue eating milk and meat, why? well aside from the Talmud, there is reference right there on Judiasm101's webpage Now, I never read the Talmud, but the tense and mentality is very clear to me (personally) and that is we should not have customs of eating that mimic rituals of Pagans. It was a pagan ritual to cook a baby goat in it's mothers milk, besides being a little sordid, it's strictly commanded against, but does it say I cannot eat a cheese burger? No. Nothing of the kind, since I didn't know the Talmud, I default to what the say's. Another example, is I feel it's perfectly within Kashrut to use alcohol for certain things. But this isn't from the , (if I am right in assuming the is the Pentateuch i.e. first five books) but it is from the Tanach, where it says, Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts." basically stating that I do not feel it is against Kashrut to drink alcohol in a time of great sadness or peril. However, I think every part of the Bible is important for Mitzvot. No doubt some of what I learned on the Judaism101 webpage was from the Talmud, and I know many traditions that the "other" Jews have, that I think are very good, especially in their treatment of Yom Kippur. So, I am not adverse to a discussion that the Talmud might be useful in order to establish a Mitzvot for yourself and your family, or identify as such if you believe in a Universal Mitzvot (i.e. there is a Mitzvot for all people, and it applies to everyone, all that remains is that you get the right interpretation of it, which I do and don't lol sort of). So, in order to be accountable for my actions, and to understand the Messianic Jew better, (which I am not entirely sure if I fit in yet) I humbly ask these questions. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 2, 2015 22:56:08 GMT -8
Can we have some real discussion on the mitsvot in the Parshas? I would truly enjoy that. With the Talmudic texts that are applicable?[/quote]
Yes. However we need to be careful as no one here is a Talmudic scholar. Even those raised Jewish must meet stringent requirements before embarking on a study of Talmud. So other than some oblique references, I doubt we'll be of much help.
And remember, I was working throught the mitzvoth at one time here, but it generated a lot more angst and anger than real dialogue, so I discontinued the effort.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 2, 2015 23:29:03 GMT -8
... I have always been told ... the Talmud was something that Non-Christian Jews, who were not indwelt with Ruach HaKodesh, created a convoluted recreation of a collection of the Oral Laws, after the death of Yeshua ... in order to further distance the Jewish people from believing the Messiah, and essentially establish a fictitious priesthood, to replace the hard line rules of the Tanach, with watered down traditions of man." ...  Absolutely! However these texts are not scripture, and so must be read with a lot of discernment.
Yes. 1st, then the Prophets and the Writings, then the B'rith Chadashah- all of which have been vetted many times over to insure they are in complete agreement. is the base, the standard against which all scripture is measured. Then other writings such as the Talmud, deuterocanonical books, the Ethiopian Bible, Christian commentators, etc.- all requiring a LOT of discernment.Agreed.Yes, when going to any Jewish source you will no doubt get some Talmudic thought in the mix. Not always a bad thing, just be aware the source and use discernment. And don't be too critical of their thoughts and understanding. Many Misnaic writers can, for example, make a claim no Christian commentator can- they were there when it happened! These were all very Godly men who studied and wrote what they believed to be true. Doesn't make them right by a long shot, but not necessarily wrong either. The Talmud can often fill in the gaps on customs and traditions which make scripture more understandable as well.
Dan C
|
|
azaliah
Junior Member
Warning on post in My First Shabbat
Posts: 50
|
Post by azaliah on Oct 2, 2015 23:50:30 GMT -8
I chuckled at that!
But seriously, you have opened my mind to many new thoughts I had not considered. So I will go now, and take some time just to fast and read and pray and consider what it all means.
I will be back in a few days,
Shalom Shabbat.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Oct 5, 2015 7:17:25 GMT -8
[ Actually, a Judaizer is one who insists on conversion to Judaism before he can be saved. You are using the term here as modern Christianity sees it; but as usual they got it wrong.Acts 15:1-2 (ESV) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. Neither the Nots'rim of the 1st cen nor modern Meshiachim teach you must convert to Judaism nor to keep the entire in order to be saved. We are saved by grace through trust in Yeshua HaMoshiach, and no other way. Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, We do teach observance as a way to please Hashem; our instructions for leading a life of sanctification and ridding ourselves of sin. It is one of the fruits we as believers bear is hat we serve and worship as God said, in stark contrast to the pagan world around us. This is where the Christian church is shown to be most lacking, in that they look just like the pagan cultures whose traditions they have substituted for the instructions of God. And this in fact was the conclusion of this debate, which resulted in the Jerusalem Council; the Gentile converts were given a starting place, then they were taught over time as they sat in synagogue every Shabbat and heard "Moses" () read:Acts 15:19-21 (ESV) "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”Dan C [/font][/quote] Ever noticed that one of the first things Paul done after receiving this decree was to have Timothy circumcised? Acts 16 1-4. |
|
|
|
Post by john75 on Oct 20, 2015 5:31:47 GMT -8
To answer this question I need to take you back to Acts 15; Act 15:1 And certain men coming down from Judea were teaching the brothers, "If you are not circumcised in the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Emphasis mine) The main question that the Jerusalem Council was "How are gentiles to be saved" not how should they behave. Some believers from Judea said that in order for the Gentiles to be saved they must be circumcised. This meant more than just the physical removal of the foreskin. It meant a formal "conversion" to Judaism, up to and including embracing the entire Oral Law (probably the law Peter had in mind when he referred to "a yoke... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear). We know of course that they were mistaken. Peter told the Council the story of the Roman Cornelius and his household of uncircumcised Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without formally converting to Judaism. This is the problem Paul/Saul was dealing with in Galatians. He is not saying to not obey . He is saying that being converted to Judaism will not save you. Only grace can do that. but if we are adhering to , surely we are for circumcision. I mean circumcision was a part of , as much as animal sacrifice in Jerusalem. i long for my uncircumcision to be over, it is a thing that troubles me daily. I can not abide agitators that preach in the Lords name against the practice. And the writings attributed to paul feature heavily in this group. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
). 
for what someone before me did had nothing to do with my decision to become Messianic. God said it, I believe it, here I am. Simple.
that is truly beautiful! Praise Hashem for it!
