Messianic Judaism

[inJESUS]

i just wanted to add that Sunday worship started in the first century. We read it in Didache 90 AC and on.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

I’m puzzled. Mk 16:2 says that the sun had risen, so if the word for “sun” could be translated as “east,” how could the east rise?

Also, Mark exactly says that the women came when the sun rose on the first day of the week. Does the east rise at sunset?

I could see this working – in the way both Greek and Hebrew sentences are constructed – to meaning as the rising in the east at the end of the Sabbath (i.e., the moon).

 

[inJESUS]

Rabbi, again I salute you and hope that you will bear with my question and comment.

First, a question: if “all of the followers of Yeshua were Jews” where does that leave me, a Gentile son of a Gentile?

Second, Acts 21 does state that the Jewish followers of Jesus (please pardon my use of the name that is most familiar to me) continued to follow the Law (v 24). However, the chapter goes on to reference the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem (v. 25) concerning the Gentiles who had come to believe.

Right there, we can see that all the followers of Yeshua were not Jewish, for there were enough Gentile believers to have caused this question to be raised. Indeed, Acts 21:20 does not claim that ALL of the believers were Jews, only that there were many thousands of such believers.

Anyway, we go back to 15:28-29 and we read that the Gentiles are told specifically that they do NOT have to follow the Law.

-JohnPaul

exactly, that’s why i asked.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

First, a question: if “all of the followers of Yeshua were Jews” where does that leave me, a Gentile son of a Gentile?

You are grafted into Israel, according to Romans 9.

Second, Acts 21 does state that the Jewish followers of Jesus (please pardon my use of the name that is most familiar to me) continued to follow the Law (v 24). However, the chapter goes on to reference the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem (v. 25) concerning the Gentiles who had come to believe.

Right there, we can see that all the followers of Yeshua were not Jewish, for there were enough Gentile believers to have caused this question to be raised. Indeed, Acts 21:20 does not claim that ALL of the believers were Jews, only that there were many thousands of such believers.

I was speaking actually of before then. I can’t imagine they dropped their Torah observance and then started it again. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

Anyway, we go back to 15:28-29 and we read that the Gentiles are told specifically that they do NOT have to follow the Law.

Read the entire passage, starting at verse one. Pay careful attention to verses nineteen to twenty-one, which tell the ruling of the Nazarene Sanhedrin. It is a starting point for new non-Jewish Believers for fellowship, and it tells them where to go to learn God’s Torah – the synagogue. It’s a process, even for those born into Israel, who are not held accountable for the Torah’s commands until the age of 13.

Remember what I said: one must be Redeemed FIRST. Only THEN does Torah matter. The debate there was not about whether or not non-Jewish Believers should keep Torah. It was about whether or not they had to CONVERT to Judaism PRIOR to accepting Messiah! That’s what the whole circumcision argument was about! Circumcision was the final step of a formal conversion process, which the “Circumcision Faction” was saying they had to do before accepting Messiah! It’s like those who believe today you must be baptized or you’re not saved… if you die after you’ve accepted Messiah but before you’re baptized, they say you’re not saved.

Again, I gave an entire sermon on this topic, one I’m obviously going to have to post on our website.

 

[JohnPaul0]

I could see this working – in the way both Greek and Hebrew sentences are constructed – to meaning as the rising in the east at the end of the Sabbath (i.e., the moon).

Then you have Luke:

“But at daybreak on the first day of the week they … went to the tomb.” (Lk 24:1, emphasis added.).

And John:

“On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning.” (Jn 20:1, emphasis added).

So we have very clear statements from the Gospel authors that the woemn came in the morning on the first day of the week, compared to your vague comment about how Greek and Hebrew sentences are constructed.

Methinks you’ll need a more substantiative proof.

Peace,
JohnPaul

 

[JohnPaul0]

You are grafted into Israel, according to Romans 9.

Whew! Thanks, unworthy as I am.

Read the entire passage [Acts 15], starting at verse one. Pay careful attention to verses nineteen to twenty-one, which tell the ruling of the Nazarene Sanhedrin. It is a starting point for new non-Jewish Believers for fellowship, and it tells them where to go to learn God’s Torah – the synagogue. It’s a process, even for those born into Israel, who are not held accountable for the Torah’s commands until the age of 13.

Remember what I said: one must be Redeemed FIRST. Only THEN does Torah matter. The debate there was not about whether or not non-Jewish Believers should keep Torah. It was about whether or not they had to CONVERT to Judaism PRIOR to accepting Messiah! That’s what the whole circumcision argument was about! Circumcision was the final step of a formal conversion process, which the “Circumcision Faction” was saying they had to do before accepting Messiah! It’s like those who believe today you must be baptized or you’re not saved… if you die after you’ve accepted Messiah but before you’re baptized, they say you’re not saved.

Okay, I think I understand what you teach, but I don’t see how it squares with that passage of Scripture.

First,
It is not discussing whether Gentiles need to keep Torah before converting, because these Gentiles already were called “brothers” to the members of the Council (Acts 15:23).

Second, I don’t see in this passage the support for your teaching of first conversion, then Torah. I don’t see where Christians are taught to follow the Law.

There is one reference to the fact that Moses is read in a synagogue on the sabbath, but no one is told to go and listen.

-JohnPaul

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Then you have Luke:

“But at daybreak on the first day of the week they … went to the tomb.” (Lk 24:1, emphasis added.).

And John:

“On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning.” (Jn 20:1, emphasis added).

So we have very clear statements from the Gospel authors that the woemn came in the morning on the first day of the week, compared to your vague comment about how Greek and Hebrew sentences are constructed.

Methinks you’ll need a more substantiative proof.

Peace,
JohnPaul

Again, the beginning of the day is sundown. Period. You have to assume these people – not just the authors, but the people they were writing to – were suddenly able to totally divorce themselves from their previous way of looking at the world according to Scripture in order to accept this. And, also, I’d like to see what the HEBREW manuscripts say. There’re plenty of cases of questionable translations in the Greek. I have a feeling there’s been some monkeying about with the text in the Greek translations.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Whew! Thanks, unworthy as I am.

Okay, I think I understand what you teach, but I don’t see how it squares with that passage of Scripture.

First,
It is not discussing whether Gentiles need to keep Torah before converting, because these Gentiles already were called “brothers” to the members of the Council (Acts 15:23).

Second, I don’t see in this passage the support for your teaching of first conversion, then Torah. I don’t see where Christians are taught to follow the Law.

There is one reference to the fact that Moses is read in a synagogue on the sabbath, but no one is told to go and listen.

-JohnPaul

Uh… then WHY IS TORAH EVEN MENTIONED?!? And why doesn’t it say flat-out “No more shall Torah be required”? This was their opportunity to make a definitive statement, if that is their intent, and yet they do not.

Also, what did Yeshua say in Matthew 5:13-20?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Unfortunately, when you simplify them down to a few lines, it seems that way. There’s a major difference in HOW we believe them. Your comment reminded me… I’ve been wanting to upload the sermons we’ve been giving lately, in-depth explanations of each of the articles. I’ve updated the site with them (and bumped up the size of the font on the Statement of Faiths, it was a bit small). Have a look and comment!

Here are my updated thoughts:

The preamble mentions Rabbi Moses Maimonides, to my knowledge he was always a orthodox Jew and didnt like Christianity, Im confused why you would put the Rabbi’s list up, especially considering points like #3,#12. Maybe its just me but I wouldnt include him as a guide for Christian doctrine.

Item 1:
-I didnt see a list of what books you consider Scripture, it would help to answer questions like whether or not you consider the Deuterocanonical books to be Scripture and what NT books you accept as well. Also what is your official/primary Bible translation?
-This is a common question we ask protestants around here, but how do you determine what is Scripture for both OT and NT given that the Bible nowhere gives a list?
-You mention the “Millenial Kingdom”…what is that?

Item 3:
-Interesting stuff though Im not sure I understand all of what your saying in the second half.

Item 7:
-You quote Gen 3:15, who do you believe the “woman” is and what does “animosity between you and the woman” mean to you?

Also at the end when you talk about the Torah what are your views concerning the need for a Levitical priesthood, sacrifices and a Temple? Considering you say Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice makes a lot of Torah passages obsolete.

Overall it was helpful in getting more information, and as you know there is more to be posted.

No, at least not in the branch(es) I associate with. In fact, Dr. James Trimm, a briliant Messianic scholar, has published a translation and commentary on an ancient Hebrew manuscript of the Book of Hebrews.

Thats good to know, the MJ I was talking to said stuff like Heb 8:13 were false.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Remember what I said: one must be Redeemed FIRST. Only THEN does Torah matter. The debate there was not about whether or not non-Jewish Believers should keep Torah. It was about whether or not they had to CONVERT to Judaism PRIOR to accepting Messiah! That’s what the whole circumcision argument was about! Circumcision was the final step of a formal conversion process, which the “Circumcision Faction” was saying they had to do before accepting Messiah! It’s like those who believe today you must be baptized or you’re not saved… if you die after you’ve accepted Messiah but before you’re baptized, they say you’re not saved.

Again, I gave an entire sermon on this topic, one I’m obviously going to have to post on our website.

I dont believe the Bible supports the teaching Christians should be circumcised, especially AFTER converting to Christianity, infact there are powerful quotes against the notion: 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal 5
This is pretty powerful comments from St Paul, getting circumcised is an official ritual that obligates one to observe the whole law.

Uh… then WHY IS TORAH EVEN MENTIONED?!? And why doesn’t it say flat-out “No more shall Torah be required”? This was their opportunity to make a definitive statement, if that is their intent, and yet they do not.

Also, what did Yeshua say in Matthew 5:13-20?

As far as a “fat out…definitive statement” here is what I see both decided upon and what was in the official letter that was sent: 5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”
…
…
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
…
…
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28**It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. **
Acts 15
Nowhere is it stated the Gentiles are to ever turn to circumcision.

As for “why is the Torah even mentioned”…it is in reference to the prophetic verses mentioned in verses 16-18 which says the Gentiles will be accepted along with the Jews.

 

[Valke2]

Are we talking here about Jews who believe that Jesus was divine or God?

Or Are we talking here about Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah and that he will return to complete his task?

 

[Valke2]

I dont believe the Bible supports the teaching Christians should be circumcised, especially AFTER converting to Christianity

I’m no fan of Messianic Judaism, but I don’t believe he was suggesting that.

 

[JohnPaul0]

Again, the beginning of the day is sundown. Period. You have to assume these people – not just the authors, but the people they were writing to – were suddenly able to totally divorce themselves from their previous way of looking at the world according to Scripture in order to accept this.

Yes, I am aware that that in Jewish thinking the day begins at sundown. However, the authors of the Gospel are taking pains NOT to say that the women arrived at the beginning of the day. Rather, three of them clearly state that the women came in the morning, or daybreak or when the sun had risen. These narratives place their arrival not at “the beginning of the day,(i.e. sundown)” as you seem to think they say, but in the morning.

In Genesis, the writer makes a similar distinction as he documents each day of creation… Evening and morning, evening and morning. The day begins at evening, but morning follows–and morning is a different time of day than the evening. (cf Gen 1:3,8,13,19,23, 31).

And, also, I’d like to see what the HEBREW manuscripts say. There’re plenty of cases of questionable translations in the Greek. I have a feeling there’s been some monkeying about with the text in the Greek translations.

Any evidence to back up your feeling? If so, every translation of the NT that I’ve seen is in error. Here are translations from BibleGateway.com :

Mark 16:2
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

2Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

New International Version (NIV)
2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

King James Version (KJV)
2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

American Standard Version (ASV)
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

Thank you for your patience in dealing with me, Rabbi!:clapping:

JohnPaul

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

Here are my updated thoughts:

The preamble mentions Rabbi Moses Maimonides, to my knowledge he was always a orthodox Jew and didnt like Christianity, Im confused why you would put the Rabbi’s list up, especially considering points like #3,#12. Maybe its just me but I wouldnt include him as a guide for Christian doctrine.

Remember, this is commentary on the Premable and these Articles, not the actual Statement of Faith itself. I wanted to discuss the idea of a Statement of Faith in Judaism. As for problems with the Rambam’s Ani Ma’amin, I see no problem with them. Again, the angel is in the details. #3 says the Creative force has no body. Well, assuming that the force of Creation is the Father (although the agent of action is Yeshua), we know the manifestation of God called “Abba” has no body. #12 says “I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless I wait every day for his coming.” Don’t we believe Yeshua is coming? Even coming back is coming. And don’t we wait every day for His coming, no matter how long it takes?

Item 1:
-I didnt see a list of what books you consider Scripture, it would help to answer questions like whether or not you consider the Deuterocanonical books to be Scripture and what NT books you accept as well.

The Messianic Community at large accepts the standard Canon of both the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) and the Apostolic Writings. I have been an advocate for the past several years of re-examining the Deuterocanonical books to see which ones should be considered canon.

For example, at least two, if not three, and possibly all of the Books of the Maccabees were considered canonical by both Jewish and Christian standards for quite some time. The Rabbis removed them for political, not Scriptural, reasons – because the events chronicled put a non-Davidic dynasty on the throne of Israel. I’m not sure that’s a valid reason for removing them from canon.

Also what is your official/primary Bible translation?

We don’t have one. It’s pell-mell. There was an attempt by Dr. James Trimm of the Institute for Nazarene Jewish Studies to go back to the earliest extant Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts for both the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings and do a new translation into English. He only did so for the Apostolic, and for the Tanakh simply used an old version by the Jewish Publication Society that’s in the public domain. My main problem with the end product (called the Hebrew Roots Version) is that his rendering is very… well, it seems very stilted, almost King James-like. I would like to see a similar translation in more plain, modern English.

The closest thing to a universally-used translation is a rephrasing by Dr. David Stern of the Jewish New Testament Project called the Complete Jewish Bible, and I have problems with that for many reasons (not the least of which is that it’s simply a Judaized rephrasing of the standard Greek translations.

-This is a common question we ask protestants around here, but how do you determine what is Scripture for both OT and NT given that the Bible nowhere gives a list?

I am going to terribly disappoint my argumentation profs in college now and appeal to authority: because the rabbis and the church has established a canon. Beyond that, my training’s real limited on the subject. As I said previously, it’s an issue that needs to be re-examined.

-You mention the “Millenial Kingdom”…what is that?

The Millennial Kingdom is the thousand year reign of Messiah on this Earth, following the Time of Jacob’s Trouble and the Ingathering of Israel at the End of This Age. It will be followed by the Final Judgment and the Messianic Kingdom on the New Earth.

Item 3:
-Interesting stuff though Im not sure I understand all of what your saying in the second half.

It is simply showing that a tri-une godhead is a concept in Jewish theology as much as Christian.

Item 7:
-You quote Gen 3:15, who do you believe the “woman” is and what does “animosity between you and the woman” mean to you?

Also at the end when you talk about the Torah what are your views concerning the need for a Levitical priesthood, sacrifices and a Temple? Considering you say Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice makes a lot of Torah passages obsolete.

Yes and no. Not all of the sacrifices were sin sacrifices, and the only sacrifice Yeshua was the final one of was the sin sacrifices. There is still a need for the other sacrifices, and the other functions of the Temple.

 

[Georgess]

My small effort here to make some sense /peace - ( in this season of Peace and truth ) - of the interesting argument , as to how the women could have come to the tomb ’ after ’ the sabbath …well, if the women had set out right after the Sabbath from their home , may be in this case possibly Bethany - a good enough distance from Calvary, and walked the long and courageous walk ( like many of our Jewish brethren ) they may not have arrived at The Tomb, till day hreak …

Hope The Rabbi and all of us will have a Blessed NewYear and Feast of Mother Of God - a day that can be even more special for our jewish brethren …and also the joy of the comaprison and contrast with the queen mothers of O.T with The Mother !

Hope too , one day soon , our Church will be enriched by the hauntingly beautiful way of the jewish style of singing the psalms and such !

 

[rtconstant]

Are we talking here about Jews who believe that Jesus was divine or God?

Or Are we talking here about Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah and that he will return to complete his task?

Now that’s an enteresting question. I really had never thought of that possibility before. Are there Jews who accept that Jesus was the messiah but not necessarily the divine?

 

[Victorious]

It’s like those who believe today you must be baptized or you’re not saved… if you die after you’ve accepted Messiah but before you’re baptized, they say you’re not saved.

If I can zero in on one of your remarks, this is not necessarily true. In the circumstances you mention, there’s the possibility of baptism by desire. The Catholic Church does teach the necessity of baptism, and the grave responsibility of parents to have their children baptized; however, if you desire baptism, but die before you can be baptized, you may still be saved as though you had been baptized.

As a side note, there is also baptism by blood. Someone who is martyred for Christ, even though he was not sacramentally baptized, nevertheless receives the grace of baptism. Example: the male children that Herod had massacred when he realized the Magi had tricked him. These are the Holy Innocents, whose feast day we just celebrated this week. They were murdered for the sake of Christ, and so were baptized in their own blood.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

If I can zero in on one of your remarks, this is not necessarily true. In the circumstances you mention, there’s the possibility of baptism by desire. The Catholic Church does teach the necessity of baptism, and the grave responsibility of parents to have their children baptized; however, if you desire baptism, but die before you can be baptized, you may still be saved as though you had been baptized.

I’m not talking about Catholicism, but groups like the Baptists.

 

[Victorious]

I’m not talking about Catholicism, but groups like the Baptists.

I must be missing something, because I don’t think the Baptists believe in the necessity of baptism. They view it as a symbolic act that serves as a mere public declaration of one’s belief in Jesus as the Savior.

 

[RabbiAdamBernay]

I must be missing something, because I don’t think the Baptists believe in the necessity of baptism. They view it as a symbolic act that serves as a mere public declaration of one’s belief in Jesus as the Savior.

My mistake; I was sure they believed baptism was mandatory for salvation (hence the name “Baptists”). I know there is a denomination that believes that, but I guess I misidentified it.

I just deal with mikvah, as Scripture denotes it, which is where baptism comes from. It’s not a one-time deal.