A Rabbi Who Is Not Misguided

[zionlion]

The technical quality of this video is poor but the message is rich:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XfOWBmstQ

[tonga]

Sept 29, 2009 20:06:31 GMT -8 zionlion said:

The technical quality of this video is poor but the message is rich:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XfOWBmstQ

This man is not a rabbi....and you should do a little research on
his past history. I'm not so sure you will be too pleased by
what you learn.

[zionlion]

You're right, I should have.
Please save me the work. Tell me about him.

[tonga]

Sept 30, 2009 20:16:56 GMT -8 zionlion said:

You're right, I should have.
Please save me the work. Tell me about him.

To start with- and this is a verifiable fact- he was a
bigamist.
He also was not a rabbi; he never obtained smichah.
He wasn't even a religious Jew before he became a
Christian.
To be charitable, let's just say he did not get along well
with his neighbors in Israel.

[zionlion]

OK, I did some research. Yes, you and I would have theological differences with him. But I looked up the term "rabbi" in two encyclopedias and a dictionary. All say that while most rabbis attend some type of rabbinical school, that's not always the case.

Rabbis are defined as "spiritual leaders of a synagogue" and "spiritual leaders in the Jewish community". "Synagogue" is defined as "an assembly or congregation of Jews for the purpose of religious worship".

Pearlmutter would seem to have been, by definition, a rabbi.

[tonga]

Sept 30, 2009 21:33:54 GMT -8 zionlion said:

OK, I did some research. Yes, you and I would have theological differences with him. But I looked up the term "rabbi" in two encyclopedias and a dictionary. All say that while most rabbis attend some type of rabbinical school, that's not always the case.

Rabbis are defined as "spiritual leaders of a synagogue" and "spiritual leaders in the Jewish community". "Synagogue" is defined as "an assembly or congregation of Jews for the purpose of religious worship".

Pearlmutter would seem to have been, by definition, a rabbi.

"rabbi" implies someone who has smicha. Period. No one in
the Jewish community is going to be called rabbi unless
he has earned the "title", despite what the dictionary says.
I've seen Jews called rabbi before who were not, and they
were quick to correct the error. I've even been called
"rebbetzin" before, but I let them know I wasn't married
to a rabbi.

Someone calling themselves rabbi when they do not have
the education to match the title is being deceptive.
And let's not forget the fact that he was a Christian, and
that compounds the "sin" of calling oneself rabbi. Sort of
like a buddhist calling themselves a catholic priest.

None of which negates the fact that he was a bigamist.

[zionlion]

I'm calling for a truce.

I admit that I could have chosen a better example for my post and am guilty of not doing proper research.

Spiritual leadership suggests leadership under the direction of the Spirit.

Would you be willing to admit that one doesn't need a college degree or graduation from a rabbinical school to be led by the Spirit to become a spiritual leader?

Peace

[tonga]

Oct 1, 2009 17:31:24 GMT -8 zionlion said:

I'm calling for a truce.



Would you be willing to admit that one doesn't need a college degree or graduation from a rabbinical school to be led by the Spirit to become a spiritual leader?

Peace

Of course one can be a "spiritual leader" but one cannot be a
rabbi without smichah. It is much different because a rabbi
must be able to make decisions based on Jewish law. That
takes years of yeshiva education.

[zionlion]

So, if a rabbinic student is spending years studying Jewish law, that would mean that the main focus of study is oral law and oral law is considered to be equal with written law and sanctioned by the Ruach. Is that correct?

If so, would gentiles who want to worship Elohim have to learn and practice oral law to be acceptable to Him?

[tonga]

Oct 2, 2009 0:37:13 GMT -8 zionlion said:

So, if a rabbinic student is spending years studying Jewish law, that would mean that the main focus of study is oral law and oral law is considered to be equal with written law and sanctioned by the Ruach. Is that correct?

Of course they study other things, but yes there is an emphasis
on Oral Law because one of a rabbis major jobs is making
halachic decisions. And yes, we consider Oral Law to be given
by G-d, the same way I suppose that Christians accept the NT
as being holy scripture.

If so, would gentiles who want to worship Elohim have to learn and practice oral law to be acceptable to Him?

No; the only thing G-d requires of gentiles is to follow the seven
noahide laws. They are not obligated to follow , written or
oral.

[zionlion]

Well, there is one small difference. "Christians" believe in the New Covenant because Elohim speaks of it through the prophets.

There are severe penalties for breaking written law. If oral law is equal to written law, then there must be severe penalties for breaking oral law. What are they and where do I find them in Tanach?

I'm really concerned for the gentiles. Keeping noahide law looks like a free pass to the fiery realm. It seems unlikely that anyone could keep a perfect score for their entire lifetime and I see no provision for atonement.

[yeshuafreak]

i find no good reason to say that the Nazarean Codicil is better than the Oral law. essentially the NC is christianity's and MJ's talmud. whether or not the authority is the same i am not allowed to discuss. but we cannot claim that oral law is unscriptural because halakhic decisions is what R. Sha'ul and R. Ya'akov, R. Kefa, etc all made in certin instances like act 15.

TONGA: would a man who was Rabbinically Jewish and trained as a rabbi, and then converted to MJ, would you consider him a rabbi.

[tonga]

TONGA: would a man who was Rabbinically Jewish and trained as a rabbi, and then converted to MJ, would you consider him a rabbi.

Interesting question...if he had Orthodox smichah, and if he
became a Christian, my own opinion (and nothing more than
that ) is that he would no longer be considered a rabbi.

Much the same as if a Catholic priest converted to Judaism,
he would no longer be considered a Catholic priest.

[yeshuafreak]

very good analogy, and i agree completely.

i agree with you that MJ is NOT Rabbinic Judaism, even though they share common roots. however, it is A judaism. RJ, KJ MJ and Xianity all came from a root "proto" judaism. they split with different doctrines. KJ said that we should follow the the same way, and on a litreal level. RJ said that the rabbis progressed Judaism, and added a mystical level. MJ said that Jesus progressed Judaism. Xianity said that Jesus replaced judaism, and becae a pauline religion.

all of these, with the exception of Xianity (which is a supersessionist religion), are surviving Judaisms, but are seperate and distinct. so MJ IS Judaism, but not RJ or KJ. MJ should never become a branch of RJ- ever. its not our religion and ours is not your relgiion. but we are all judaisms.

its like the essenes pharisees saducees nazarenes, etc- they are ALL judaisms (though not all of them survived) but essenes are not a branch of pharisaic judaism, etc.

what do you think?

shalom

[tonga]

i agree with you that MJ is NOT Rabbinic Judaism, even though they share common roots. however, it is A judaism.

I disagree. The tenets of the Messianic faith are too different
from Judaism to be considered a part of our faith. We consider
it a branch of Christianity. When you look at the Messianic faith,
and how it's followers act and write and speak, it is nothing
more than Evangelical Chrisitanity with a little observance
thrown in.

Not to say it is evil or people are wrong to follow it if they choose,
but it is wrong for "outsiders" to try to classify their religion as
a subset of Judaism when Judaism rejects it, when it's tenets
are foreign to us (and to us against ) and most of it adherents are not Jewish.

I think that is why Jews tend to get riled about the Messianic
faith: most followers are not Jews, it's beliefs and not compatible
with Judaism, and we get tired to hearing how Judaism is not
the "true" Judaism of the Tanach and is man made.

I think the proper thing would be for the Messianic faith to be
called just that, and to leave off the "Judaism".