|
Post by Golfnerd on Jul 21, 2006 8:04:02 GMT -8
WHAT SAY YOU?? Has the Messianic brethren swayed TOO far and are more concerned withthe letter of the verses the intent/principle behind the commandments? The reason I'm asking is that I just posted on another site that had a 10 page discussion on Tzitztits and the last 3 pages were discussing the CORRECT color of blue thread. SHEESH!! Then there's a 8 page thread on rennet in cheese and how that violates the boiling a kid in it's mother's milk mitzvot. ;D Help a brutha out here. Oh....Shabbat Shalom!!!
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 21, 2006 8:38:31 GMT -8
WHAT SAY YOU?? Has the Messianic brethren swayed TOO far and are more concerned withthe letter of the verses the intent/principle behind the commandments? The reason I'm asking is that I just posted on another site that had a 10 page discussion on Tzitztits and the last 3 pages were discussing the CORRECT color of blue thread. SHEESH!! Then there's a 8 page thread on rennet in cheese and how that violates the boiling a kid in it's mother's milk mitzvot. ;D Help a brutha out here. Oh....Shabbat Shalom!!! When we speak about Messianic Judaism, you need to realize that there are so many different stream within the stream. There are thos who move in a more Orthodox stream, almost to the point of resembling Rabbinic Judaism. Many of these people are the very people who are denying Messiah. On the other hand you have those who call themselves Messianic, and yet do not recognize the validity of for today, and simply operate with Judaic trappings. These are the very people who are rightly accused by traditional Judaism as being deceptive. One must look to find the balance, and that balance is the . There are others here who might disagree, but I think the majority would agree that the prohibition regarding milk and meat is a Rabbinic one, and not command. Further, while the wearing of TzitTzit are commanded with the Techelet, it is a Rabbinic argument as to what is the proper ink to be used. In my opinion, if one is convinced that the blue dye is the proper one, then they do so by faith, and if not then do not wear the Techelet. As I was studying this morning for my message, I read this, and thought it speaks volumes to what is the proper way for us to live. It relates to "Al pi HaShem" = the bidding of G-d, and is concerned with the journies of Bnei Yisrael when they leave Mitzrayim = Egypt. Keep in mind that is Eternal, and there is always a message for posterity that we must learn, as it relates to our own journies. "Man's plan in the physical realm is to accomplish PLAN A, if that fails, there is always Plan B, C, & D. However, the spiritual realm operates within a different paradigm. The is G-d's own PLAN A, and it is guaranteed to succeed. Who is better than the Creator of the Universe to forge the plan for entering into, and remaining in relationship with Him. Success does not come from the accomplishment of any particular act, but the continued striving to succeed, even when tangible success seems elusive.
I love this statement. It is what we are all about. It is not about the act, or the letter, but about striving to succeed in the PLAN A that HaShem has laid out for us.
Rabbinic Judaism is not the Plan that G-d has laid out for we who follow Messiah Yeshua, for the Rabbi's have strayed in their "Masei" = journies. For all the journies spoken of in lead to Moshiach.
I don't know if this helps, but I felt like it might be a blessing to you and others here.
Shabbat Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jul 21, 2006 9:20:53 GMT -8
It is very easy when observing the mitzvot to be caught up in the act rather than the intent behind it. Even our Sages recognized this. The only way to prevent this is to have/develop a close, personal relationship with HaShem our Creator. And it is also very important that one remembers why we keep the mitzvot. For those of us who are Messianic, we have two reasons: 1. Because HaShem commanded it in his 2. Because we are to emulate the Mashiach who kept perfectly So I know that these weren't your main questions, but I thought that it would be good to provide some answers.... There is only one source from which the dye can be produced for the techelet. Thankfully, this source has now been found and is being used in HaEretz to produce tzitzit with techelet. This can be found at: www.tekhelet.com. There are two main opinions on this. - One, that cheese with rennet is a violation, and therefore it is only permissible to only eat cheese that is certified cholov yisroel.
- Two, the amount of rennet is so negligible that it is nullified.
*There is also a third opinion that it is permissible to eat cheese that is rennet free. So ultimately it just depends on your minhag (custom). It still baffles me that people who once believed, can deny the Mashiach. Even if all else could be rejected, one can still point to Yeshayahu 53 and the B'sorah Tovah and see that Y'hoshua ben-Yosef fit the requirements of the "Suffering Messiah." And though it may be, this tends to be more the rule than the exception. Agreed! Just to clarify for others out there, Yitzchak is referring to the Rabbinic prohibition of eating the two together, not the prohibition of cooking them together.
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 21, 2006 12:50:09 GMT -8
Just to clarify for others out there, Yitzchak is referring to the Rabbinic prohibition of eating the two together, not the prohibition of cooking them together. [/quote] Todah Achi, I appreciate the clarification. You have said it well. I should have been more specific in my response. Shabbat Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jul 21, 2006 14:48:10 GMT -8
Not a problem. Shabbat Shalom achi!
|
|
|
Post by Dogface Of Judah on Jul 24, 2006 12:02:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Jul 24, 2006 13:57:09 GMT -8
Shalom all; Well i lost power due to storms on Wed the 19th at 18:40 and just got it back today, Mon the 24th at 14:00. But praise Yeshua, i only had 52 billion sticks and branchs to pick up and that was it. . The house is on one piece and all is well. The weather has been great so cleanup went well. Alot of others are in far far worse shape than i am and i praise G-d from the bottom of my heart that he spared me. I think the wind speeds were in the 100-110 range(gusts) for 35 min strait. I watched it all but 2 min and i can tell you it looked exactly like Katrina just less intense but looked the same. All in all it has been a good(for myself- i have no wife or children or that would change things a tad but still be good) and i shall be posting when i can(in a few days). Well thank you all and G-d bless. Now back to the yard for me. Chaver, It is good to hear that you are doing well after the storms. I can relate. Living in South Florida for the last 19 years has been interesting. I lived in Homestead at the time of Andrew, and my home was right in the eye of the storm, and G-d protected us. I have lived through 3-4 major hurricanes, and only had some major cleanup to the yard, but the house was always safe. I feel for you, as I always remember the sore back from cleaning all the debris after a storn. Baruch HaShem. You were not hurt, and we look forward to seeing you back posting soon. Shalom, Yitzchak
|
|
|
Post by messimom on Jul 24, 2006 17:10:01 GMT -8
LOL!! Way to be positive!! But in all seriousness, halleluYah that you weren't hurt. I have never had to live through anything serious....so I couldn't even imagine the clean up if that were my yard. My mom in law weathered hurricane Camille at an air force base in(or near) Biloxi. She said that at one point you could see the roof lifting off the walls and see the sky. Very scary!! But what I think is hilarious about her story, is that she lived in a mobile home park at the time (as so many military families did) and to keep their propane tanks from blowing away, everyone in the park would just chain them to the trees!! I think even FEMA could have helped them there with safety procedures!!! LOL
Well anyway, praise YHVH you are okay, I hope others in your area faired as well.
Messimom
|
|
|
Post by Dogface Of Judah on Jul 25, 2006 15:11:47 GMT -8
Thank you Yitzchak this has cleared up a few issues for me. I do have more issues :Pbut must get to the gutters. You are a gentleman and a scholar If you and others can, tie together the New Testament with the for me please. Both are equal and cannot be broken or handled separately. Just want to here your thoughts. Thank you all again, this is a awesome forum Ed
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 26, 2006 3:48:28 GMT -8
If you and others can, tie together the New Testament with the for me please. Both are equal and cannot be broken or handled separately. Just want to here your thoughts. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:8-11) The Church usually loses interest in this verse when it gets to the phrase that the Law is for the establishment of sound doctrine. They say, "I haven't murdered my mother, therefore this does not apply to me." "I am made righteous in Christ." I must point out that Paul, the writer, was not writing in the context of one who is made righteous in Christ here. He was writing as the chief of all sinners (verse 15... two verses down.) In effect, he is saying to Timothy, "The Law is for me." Conveniently, we redefine terms that get in the way of our theology. The King James translators were masters at this: being true to the translation, but using synonyms that allowed them to slant the perspective of the text. The word most translated "iniquity" is the word ah-nomos (directly translated: lawlessness). Most poingnantly stated by our Messiah, "And because lawlessness shall abound, the love of many will wax cold." (Matthew 24:12). Ever wonder what was the reason for so much contempt in the Church these days? Sin is consistently defined in the New Testament as rejection or abandonment of . Romans 3:20 states clearly, "...by the Law is the knowledge of sin." and makes his conclusion in Romans 3:31, "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yes, we establish the Law." In Romans 7:7 Paul reiterates the point, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." The Church will declare that I'm grabing these verses out of their context; and, yes, this is not the point that Paul was making. Yet, these are emphatic statements that are consistent with the rest of Paul's teaching and conduct if we are willing to look into the complete context of Paul's life. Otherwise, when he defends his observance in Acts 21:24, Acts 24:14 and Acts 28:17, he is left an unscrupulous hypocrite and liar. The spirit of the Law, "the end of the Law" if you will is love, unfeigned and out of a pure heart." I return to Yeshua's statement in Matthew 24:12. He said also, "This is the Law and the prophets" (or in the NIV, "this sums up the Law and the prophets..." Matthew 7:12. I ask the Church, "What is the difference between "sums up" and "abbrogates"? The context and methodology of worship and religious practice, in which our Messiah chose to fully participate, has been deemed by the Christian Church as either irrelevant or wrong. If we follow Yeshua as our Messiah, our Lord and our God, then we must follow . Otherwise, we give Him lip-service and follow only our own arrogant and lawless ambitions.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 26, 2006 4:18:02 GMT -8
I need to add here that following the "intent" does not mean rejecting the letter. Yeshua said, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23) We see each mitzvot as interpretted within the greater context of how to express and act in love, not as though we have to identify and understand how a mitzvot is loving before we are obligated to perform it; but knowing that each mitzvot is an expression of how Adonai defines love regardless if we understand it (sorry for the Pauline sentence structure). White tzitzits with no thread of blue annoy me to no end. I understand the history, the reasoning and the passion behind it; but I'm a gentile and my passion is for . If the thread of blue us not there (which IS the command), what's the point? (Stop snickering Yitchak). There is a lot of throwing out the baby withthe bathwater, no matter what religion or conviction you hold. There is not one of us who is immune to it. I used to be a tech writer who wrote emergency action plans for what was basically 9-1-1 for a manufacturing plant that employed nearly 10,000 people. I told the operators who used my materials, "The text book is only completely relevant to a text-book environment. Fires, toxic gases and people engaged in acts of violence are not following any text-book. Use the guides as a general outline, understand the intent, and shoot from the hip." That's a necessary perspective when applying rules of discretion on our lateral plane... that's because I'm not God. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11) Yet, the principle has value that for our application we should understand the intent- if the end result of our "obedience" is something that is contrary to what we otherwise (Scripturally) know as love, then we are misunderstanding something somewhere. We ought not refrain from obedience because we don't understand the application; but obey seeking to understand what is the manifestation of love in the obedience. This is how we find ourselves drawing closer to God, not by evaluating whether or not He was really talking to me or not.
|
|