|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 5, 2009 13:13:43 GMT -8
So... is a priest only a priest if he is Catholic? If so, I wonder, what does a Catholic call an Anglican clergyman? Within their respectived denominations they are each known as "priests" and see no problem affording the other such recognition.
It was in the mid 1980s that some elements of Reformed or Conservative Judaism (I can't remember which) were debating as to whether or not allow women to be rabbis. They finally agreed to appeal to Jerusalem, who responded, "Do whatever you want to do. You're not Jews."
It's a bit unreasonable to assume that everyone else in the world must necessarily agree with our terminology as to how we identify ourselves. If it were in my within my sovereign power, trust me, there a good many self-proclaimed Messianic theologians who wouldn't be. There is actually a group in Israel who call themselves Messianic Jews in that they are awaiting the first advent of Messiah to come.
The thing is, anyone can call themselves anything they want and there isn't a whole lot anyone else can do about it.
Every once in a while I get this wild hair to go ahead and pursue the credentials that would establish me as a theological expert. It would probably take me less than a year to get a pHD. Then, I meet some moron who shares the same credentials whom I would be forced to consider my peer. Frankly, it's so much more fun being a nobody who can utterly dismantle their sacred cows. I suppose I've become a bit Jaded over the years; but from most of my discussions, those seeking truth don't have any problems with how they find it. Those needing credentials are just wanting to shore up their own dogmas- this pretty much applies to any faith.
Is Messianic Judaism Jewish? From my perspective, it doesn't matter. But the Christians tell me that I'm not Christian either. Yet, when throughout history, Old Testament or New, have the prophets and followers of truth and righteousness had a majority to whom they could fall back on? It seems to me that those clinging to Adonai Elohim shouldn't expect a community foundation like Judaism or Christianity. Our Messiah told us that we would be hated of all nations for His Name's sake. If no other prophecies were true (though they are) this one has unquestionably been my experience. Yet, I find, when I walk in pursuit of truth, gaining my strength from my relationship with Him, the frustrations of not being excepted in an established theological community is a trivial price to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 5, 2009 13:22:50 GMT -8
Just a response to your position, and by the way, I tend to leave the "Judaism" off, when describing my faith. But, Paul, the writer of nearly half the New Testament did not. Consistently, when describing his "Christian" faith, he described it as being Jewish.
"And so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets." (Acts 24:14). The very last words he is every recorded as having said was to declare he had never once transgressed the "traditions of the [Jewish] fathers" (Acts 28:17). This is not the "Christianity" that is overwhelmingly taught on Sunday mornings; but it is what the records of the 1st Century Church describe- thoughout the Book of Acts you will find Jew and gentile worshipping together in the synagogue (Acts 15:21).
|
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 5, 2009 16:11:28 GMT -8
So... is a priest only a priest if he is Catholic? Of course not, the term "priest" doesn't necessarily mean Catholic. However, in my example, I specifically mentioned Catholic priest and am using it in reference to Catholics, not to other faiths. Sorry if that was a confusing example. There is a very small group of rabbis who declared those who follow conservative or reform Judaism not to be Jews. They have no halachic basis for this, and their stand has been universally rejected by other Jews. Once a Jew, always a Jew no matter what. This is quite true..... LOL! what issues do they have with your beliefs that they would label you a "non-Christian"? Aside from  observance, which I don't see why they would object to, even if they do not agree it is necessary, what problems would they have with your faith? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 5, 2009 16:52:52 GMT -8
It's a common premise within Christian doctrine that Messiah's death and resurrection abducated any role of in our life. Few articulate it to this point; but basically, many believe that by acnowledging the righteousness of we are dismissing the righteousness of faith in Christ. Put simply, to embrace (to their thinking) is to deny Messiah. This, of course, is a rediculous argument for any Jew who would see the Messiah as the ultimate proponent of (as Yeshua declared Himself to be). Yet, this idea is perpetuated by misapplied Pauline statements such as this: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:21 KJV) |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Oct 6, 2009 18:39:35 GMT -8
As the one who started this, I'd like to speak from the heart, if I may. I've enjoyed the discussion. All of us here love Elohim: Jew; gentile; messianic; Orthodox, even if we may have differences in how to express our love for Him. Each of us has strong opinions about what is truth. Sometimes differences can develop into resentment and discord. So, if I've offended anyone, I humbly and sincerely apologize. All of you are helping me grow in the things of God and I appreciate it more than you can know. I hope that I'm doing the same for you. May Elohim bless and keep us all and may we all continue to grow in knowledge and truth. Thanks and Shalom  |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 8, 2009 10:37:07 GMT -8
Put simply, to embrace (to their thinking) is to deny Messiah. I've heard a few Christians (most don't talk about ) say that while it is not necessary to follow the "law", neither is there any prohibition against it. If one were to still accept the central tenets of Christianity, I fail to see why they would object to "optional" observance. But, obviously, I am not well versed on Christian theology. But since the vast majority of Christians are not Jews, does not their position make some sense? So what is the proper "application" of this verse? |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 8, 2009 10:39:29 GMT -8
Sometimes differences can develop into resentment and discord. It's always hard to tell someone's intent on forum, since you cannot hear their tone of voice. However, I haven't seen any resentment nor discord here, just people discussing their faith. I for one haven't taken offense at anything that has been discussed here. I hope I haven't cause any offense to anyone... Omain! |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Oct 8, 2009 16:07:41 GMT -8
Hey tonga, I am curious (but not yellow). In the "Christian" world there are many commentaries on the Bible but none would ever be considered a part of or equal to Scripture. How is it and when was it that rabbinic teaching first began to be revered on the same level as the Law and prophets? Or do I misunderstand? (You don't offend me and I'm glad I don't you.  ) |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 13, 2009 20:09:38 GMT -8
Hey tonga, I am curious (but not yellow). In the "Christian" world there are many commentaries on the Bible but none would ever be considered a part of or equal to Scripture. How is it and when was it that rabbinic teaching first began to be revered on the same level as the Law and prophets? Or do I misunderstand? (You don't offend me and I'm glad I don't you. ) Sorry about the delay in responding, with the holidays I've been very busy. Normally I don't just refer people to a different site, but the question of Oral and rabbinical law is very complex. I think this gives a very good, in depth explanation of it, much better than I can do. It is quite long, but easy reading... judaismsanswer.com/Oral%20Law.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Oct 13, 2009 20:35:58 GMT -8
Thanks tonga,
I've gone there and, as it's getting late here, I'll look through it when I'm completely awake.
|
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 14, 2009 6:09:49 GMT -8
Thanks tonga, I've gone there and, as it's getting late here, I'll look through it when I'm completely awake. Also, please bear in mind I am not trying to convince you of the validity of the Oral Law for you....this just simply gives the Jewish viewpoint of it. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Oct 14, 2009 6:42:22 GMT -8
Understood. Wow - 53 pages. This is going to take awhile. I'll get back with you in a couple of weeks. |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 14, 2009 18:59:19 GMT -8
Understood. Wow - 53 pages. This is going to take awhile. I'll get back with you in a couple of weeks. Yeah, a lot of pages, but pretty easy to read. No hurry....it's just for your reading pleasure- no test to follow I don't expect you to agree with much of what is there; but hopefully it will be an interesting read. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Oct 15, 2009 15:35:23 GMT -8
I won't make any comments when I finish reading it. I don't want to be contentious, in the negative sense of the word. I have a feeling that when I get done I'll be ready for yeshiva. Can you recommend a good one? |
|
tonga
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by tonga on Oct 15, 2009 19:47:25 GMT -8
I won't make any comments when I finish reading it. I don't want to be contentious, in the bad sense of the word. No comments will be taken as contentious As I said, it's interesting reading and gives some explanations as to why we believe an Oral Law exists. Not necessary to agree with what it has to say. Sure, go to the Mir |
|
observance,
