2
- Status
2
2ndGen
Guest
Thank you!
E
estesbob
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
And I say it again-they are one in the same, You are making a distinction without a difference.
2
2ndGen
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
P
paidion
Guest
In looking through this thread, I’ve not really seen an answer to the following question. Where do Messianic Jews (Jews that believe Jesus/Yeshua is the Messiah) fit into this whole scheme?
Messianic Jews have been around since Messiah came to earth - long before the Protestant Reformers were even a thought. All of the apostles (Peter included) were originally Jews. Did they all stop being Jews simply because the Messiah came?
The Scriptures say that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Therefore, Judaism as practiced in the fulfillment of Yeshua is a valid expression of the Faith. So then, where do the Jews (who themselves believed in and taught their children of Messiah) belong in this whole paradigm?
Messianic Jews have been around since Messiah came to earth - long before the Protestant Reformers were even a thought. All of the apostles (Peter included) were originally Jews. Did they all stop being Jews simply because the Messiah came?
The Scriptures say that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Therefore, Judaism as practiced in the fulfillment of Yeshua is a valid expression of the Faith. So then, where do the Jews (who themselves believed in and taught their children of Messiah) belong in this whole paradigm?
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
The oddity of that (which I just found out recently) was that the Jews of The Apostles time thought that The Messiah came (after Jesus). Of course, their following this “messiah” led to their being beaten to a pulp by The Roman Empire and their Temple being destroyed (again).
They were messianic Jews too…they just believed that the wrong man was The Messiah. Today, the remnants of the Pharisees are The Hasidim.
Coincidently (or maybe “not” coincidentally), the same year that the Jewish revolt was squashed was the same year that the balance of Jews/Gentiles was changed in Christianity. After that, most Christians were now Gentiles (about 70 AD).
P
paidion
Guest
For purposes of this discussion, I defined Messianic Jews as Jews who believe Yeshua/Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore, Jews who did not believe Messiah had yet come or Jews who believed someone other than Yeshua was Messiah are not “Messianic Jews”.
I question your sources, 2ndGen, regarding what the Jews believed at the time of Messiah. While there were certainly those who believed that Jesus was not Messiah, or that persons other than Yeshua were Messiah, there were many Jewish contemporaries of Yeshua who believed He was Messiah. Again, I refer to the original apostles (who were all Jews) as well as many others who were believers. Some of the other believers include: Anna & Simeon (in the Temple when Yeshua was brought by his parents as an infant), Joseph of Arimethaea - who made available the tomb in which Yeshua was buried, Zaccheus (the tax collector), plus many other men and women in the Gospels.
With regard to the balance of Jews/gentile Christians being changed around AD 70, what difference does that make? Does that negate or invalidate the existence of a remnant of Jews (who worship Yeshua/Jesus as Messiah) and have maintained their Jewish heritage and practices through the ages?
It seems as though we think too narrowly when we think of the redemption history of Israel (and consequently the redemption of the world). It’s very easy to assume that when Yeshua came, He wiped out the established religious practices and set up a whole new system. The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it doesn’t agree with Yeshua’s words or His actions.
All this brings me back to my original question, where do the Messianic Jews fit into the paradigm of “Church” and denominations? Perhaps this whole paradigm needs rethinking.
I question your sources, 2ndGen, regarding what the Jews believed at the time of Messiah. While there were certainly those who believed that Jesus was not Messiah, or that persons other than Yeshua were Messiah, there were many Jewish contemporaries of Yeshua who believed He was Messiah. Again, I refer to the original apostles (who were all Jews) as well as many others who were believers. Some of the other believers include: Anna & Simeon (in the Temple when Yeshua was brought by his parents as an infant), Joseph of Arimethaea - who made available the tomb in which Yeshua was buried, Zaccheus (the tax collector), plus many other men and women in the Gospels.
With regard to the balance of Jews/gentile Christians being changed around AD 70, what difference does that make? Does that negate or invalidate the existence of a remnant of Jews (who worship Yeshua/Jesus as Messiah) and have maintained their Jewish heritage and practices through the ages?
It seems as though we think too narrowly when we think of the redemption history of Israel (and consequently the redemption of the world). It’s very easy to assume that when Yeshua came, He wiped out the established religious practices and set up a whole new system. The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it doesn’t agree with Yeshua’s words or His actions.
All this brings me back to my original question, where do the Messianic Jews fit into the paradigm of “Church” and denominations? Perhaps this whole paradigm needs rethinking.
E
estesbob
Guest
I would asume they would fit in with any other denomination that beleives Jesus was the Messiah but reject his Church .
N
nsper7
Guest
In thinking about this a little more, I have though of another reason why there are so many Protestant denominations. I have noticed that many Protestants (whether they are Reformed, Restorationist, Baptist, w/e) have the idea that the best way to deal with a disagreement is to leave that individual church or, even worse, start a new one.
I’ll use my involvement with Anglicanism as an example. Having come to faith in a strong non-denominational/Evangelical/Fundamentalist form of Christianity (it was Left Behind, followed by 700 Club, that brought me to an interest in Salvation and Christianity), Anglicanism and High Churchism is a ‘no-no’, but a friend of mine invited me to a local (I live in Gainesville, FL) church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya. In studying Church history and trying to refine my own beliefs, I have realized that Fundamentalism (as a ‘denomination’) goes back to the early 1900s, while Anglicanism can trace Apostolic Succession. At this church I attended, I was amazed. I truly connected with the traditional Eucharistic liturgy, the Lectionary and the history (i.e. recitation of the Nicenean Creed).
However, I questioned why this group was affiliated with a Kenyan diocese. It was because this group had schismed from the Episcopal Church over various issues (i.e. liberal Scriptural interpretation, the homosexual bishop, etc.). I eventually attended a service at my university’s Episcopal Chapel House.
Although I strongly disagree with some of what the Episcopal Church has allowed to occur, I realized that simply joining a schismed-out church is not exactly Scriptural either (I don’t remember when Paul, in any of his letters, told someone to leave a church that was messing things up; instead, he tells people with correct doctrine/actions to exhort those who are without and urges the importance of maintaining unity [albeit with exhortation…I’m not saying one should remain unified at the expense of being pulled into sin or just standing by as others fall into sin]).
I’ll use my involvement with Anglicanism as an example. Having come to faith in a strong non-denominational/Evangelical/Fundamentalist form of Christianity (it was Left Behind, followed by 700 Club, that brought me to an interest in Salvation and Christianity), Anglicanism and High Churchism is a ‘no-no’, but a friend of mine invited me to a local (I live in Gainesville, FL) church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya. In studying Church history and trying to refine my own beliefs, I have realized that Fundamentalism (as a ‘denomination’) goes back to the early 1900s, while Anglicanism can trace Apostolic Succession. At this church I attended, I was amazed. I truly connected with the traditional Eucharistic liturgy, the Lectionary and the history (i.e. recitation of the Nicenean Creed).
However, I questioned why this group was affiliated with a Kenyan diocese. It was because this group had schismed from the Episcopal Church over various issues (i.e. liberal Scriptural interpretation, the homosexual bishop, etc.). I eventually attended a service at my university’s Episcopal Chapel House.
Although I strongly disagree with some of what the Episcopal Church has allowed to occur, I realized that simply joining a schismed-out church is not exactly Scriptural either (I don’t remember when Paul, in any of his letters, told someone to leave a church that was messing things up; instead, he tells people with correct doctrine/actions to exhort those who are without and urges the importance of maintaining unity [albeit with exhortation…I’m not saying one should remain unified at the expense of being pulled into sin or just standing by as others fall into sin]).
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, they haven’t. The movement of “Messianic Jews” is fairly recent. Their first congregations began to be established during the 1970s. St. Peter and the other Apostles were Jewish, yes, but they were also the first Bishops of the Catholic Church; they were not members of the “Messianic Jew” movement.
E
estesbob
Guest
That was my understanding also-that they were a fairly new denoimination. the only time I ever ran across them was at the DC Promise Keepers rally-they blew horns to start off the day.
2
2ndGen
Guest
I just offered some of my opinions and facts on the issue.
But if I have to answer your question, to post on the issue, then at almost 1/2 million out of 2 Billion Christians…they “don’t” fit in.
Their a sect like other Christian sects.
Christianity theologically isn’t like Burger King…it ain’t “have it your way”.
Messianic Jews…the term doesn’t make sense. All Jews believe in a Messiah…Most just don’t believe in Jesus being The Messiah.
But I guess that sounds more politically correct to them than “Jewish Christian” or “Christian Jew”.
2
2ndGen
Guest
I’ll co-sign to that statement.
E
estesbob
Guest
I once had lunch with a guy who a fundamentalist baptist. he proudy proclaimed he was an Old Testament Christian. i said" I didnt know you were a Jew". He was not amused.
2
2ndGen
Guest
- Status