Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Is a meaningful dialoge possible? You bet!

8 years ago we bought a new house. I remember when the walk through the day before we moved in. Four months we were watching the house being built and now the time has come. As we toured the house along with the Customer service representative. we could smell the fresh paint and the aroma of a new carpet, and the next day we moved in with joy.

As the days passed we discovered the true meaning of the phrase, not everything that glitters is gold. It seems that every day we discovered another defect or imperfection. countless calls to the customer service office yield nothing, they promise to come but never did. Hey, what did they care, we have already bought the house. Calls to the corporate office were never returned. With the time we found out that the problem is not only with us, many of our neighbors went through the same thing.

Then, one day, the sun came out shining. The company replaced the existing incompetent CS representative with a new one. The new guy was like a breath of fresh air, his attitude was magnificent, he did not leave one stone unturned. He went from house to house and solved all problems. He even identified defects in our house we weren't aware of.

It turned out that this beautiful person is a Mormon. When he found out that I am a Messianic we hit it off. It led to a great friendship were we used to talk a lot, mostly theology. That is were the mistake was, discussing theology led to a parting of the ways.
But God in His mysterious ways had another plan. About two years later, arriving home one day we discovered a note stuck in the door from my old friend. He asked me to call him and of course I did, the friendship was resumed. As we met again we agreed to talk about the things that unite us, not the things that divide us that led to us parting ways. It is now about two years since then, we meet every Thursday in my house, we pray together, study together, mostly the Tanach, since as a Mormon he hardly had any exposure to the Hebrew Scriptures. It has been just great.

This is not the end of the story. Not by a long shot. A while after we resumed our meetings the Church our community was renting a space from for our services lost their lease and we had to leave. We were assembling at our house as we searched for another place. We were rejected by 31 Churches in town. Some wanted high rent that we could not afford, other Churches did not want anything to do with Messianics. I related this in passing to my LDS friend. Two weeks later he told me that he spoke to the leaders of his church an they would like to meet with us. They said that they would be honored to have us worship in their Church, they cannot charge us any rent, and what else can they do for us. We were in shock of course but gladly accepted their offer.

I don't know what God is doing here, and what is His plan in all this, but today, in the LDS church near our house, there is an ark with a Torah scroll, I teach Hebrew to a class that is predominantly Mormons, and in our last Passover seder (which was conducted in the LDS church) we had close to a hundred LDS people as our guests. They were so blessed, since none of them attended a passover seder before.

Yes, God works in mysterious ways and with Him everything is possible, even a meaningful dialogue between us poor Messianics...Yes, I can have a civil, meaningful dialogue with Kinzer, Rudolph, Derek, and Yahnatan. Gene Shlomovitch? Ehh...Just kidding, you too Gene. All we need is to find the things that unite us and discuss them first. We all seem to understand this and we keep dancing around it, afraid to engage, so I have a suggestion.

The first thing on the list on things that unite us is of course, our Master, Yeshua. He is the center of our faith. We all know that Derek's book on the life and times of Yeshua will be published soon. Why don't we follow the J-bom Model and start a D-Bom club (don't swell up Derek..LOL!) Let us discuss the book as we read it. Can there be anything better than discussing the life and times of our Messiah Yeshua?

Let us make the turn, start working toward unison, not division, And the blessings of God will follow. Do you guys think I am naive?

40 comments:

  1. No, not naive but encouraging. We'll always have differences and I think Judah was trying to say the same thing on his blog. While I enjoy a good debate, I believe it is possible to disagree and not personalize conflict. If we're supposed to be representatives of Yeshua, all of us, we should be able to sit down at the same table without biting each other's heads off. My 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan, I've heard many strange stories in my lifetime, but yours takes the cake, by far (at least for this month)!:)

    Are you the first Mormon/LDS majority Messianic congregation/group in the country?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Totally confounded by this post. But in a good way!

    Wow, interesting things happening with you and the Mormons, Dan. You know they have some really weird Two House views, right? :grin:

    I like focusing on unity. My recent post, Things We Can Agree On followed in the same vein.

    I'm definitely up for reading Derek's book and blogging about it together.

    One last thing: how do you deal with harmful ideas? (Messianic bloggers usually challenge them, resulting in division.) The Mormon church has some harmful ideas -- do you skim over them and just focus on what unifies? I'm curious to hear how the notorious Dan Benzvi has dealt with this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan:

    Very cool the relationship with the Mormon folk. You may take some heat from some people about this (some think Mormons are lepers, and sorry I even have to point this out). Their interest in the Bible is very promising and may God bless them.

    The book (Yeshua in Context: The Life and Times of Yeshua the Messiah) is coming along well. All be the last chapter is done and the cover and layout are done (except the last chapter). It will be off to the printer by the end of next week.

    Derek Leman

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gene:

    The Mormon (LDS) folk are guests at his Seder and take a Hebrew class with him. They are not members of his congregation, assuming I read his post rightly.

    Derek Leman

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok Guys, let me explain,

    To start of with, the posibility that our community becomes Mormons, or the LDS people become Messianic does not exist. We all understand our boundaries. It came as a shock to us that what we thought is a closed society in terms of accomodating other beliefs, is really good hearted people. I have yet to see any denomination withing mainstream Christianity that has the kind of disciplship program (not in theology terms but in teaching their young manners)that the LDS have.

    Some people like Gene will of course be surprised, but my background prepared me for an eventuality like this. You see, I was born and raised in Haifah Israel. At the time of my childhood and my youth, there existed, and still exists a large population of Arabs who live in the city. Most of them are Christians, but many are Muslims. There were always good relations between Jews and Arabs in Haifa. I remember, my grandparents were living in a place with many Arab neighbors, and they just adored my grandmother. They used to bring her colored Eggs on Easter, and all kind of foods throughout the year. when she passed away the whole neighborhood went into deep mourning. I had many arab friends, and I played soccer in the major leage with Arabs and against Arabs who played on other teams. They invited us into their homes and visa versa, we set in sidewalk cafes together. I worked as a lifeguard on the beach in Haifa with an Arab who did not hesitate to give CPR to a drowning Jewish girl.

    So, for me a move of reconsilation is not out of the way.
    As for your questions, yes we in our community are all familliar with Mormone theology. They do not attend our services, and visa versa. In my Hebrew class sometimes they will ask some theological questions, but I am very good in deflecting them. If you could have been in our Passover seder and see how later the LDS people surrounded us with thirst to know more, and understand more, you would have understood. These People have no concept of what the reality is, and the more they understand, the more they want to know. As I said, I don't know or understand God's plan in all this, but I am there to help.

    Hey, like Judah said, the notorious Dan Benzvi ask you please let;s make it work.

    Love you all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Some people like Gene will of course be surprised, but my background prepared me for an eventuality like this. "

    Hey Dan, not to nitpick you nitpicking me, but even you yourself were surprised, in fact shocked at first, in your own words (DB: "It came as a shock to us.")!

    BTW, I also grew up in a setting where at least some of our neighbors got along with my family splendidly - we also exchanged colored eggs and matzoh every year (on Russian Christian Orthodox Pascha and Jewish Pesach)!

    Nothing against Mormons (lovely people), but how does you being located in their facilities impact your inreach/outreach to your Jewish people or even to Gentiles in churches? (assuming you do any, which is a big assumption on my part).

    I do like the new "softer and cuddlier" Dan Benzvi:)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gene,

    OK, I am droping "Don quixote Shlomovitch" for the new moniker: "Assuming Gene..." LOL! Just kidding....

    No matter where we are, what guides us is God's word. It was hard before to reach Jews in Vegas (Just ask J4J who came up empty in their "behold your God" campaighn) and it will continue to be hard, but we will not stop.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems a bit odd to me that none of you is not even a bit disturbed by the fact that 31 churches rejected us. If we were, let's say, a spanish speaking Christian Church, they would have find room for us, but the fact is that more and more churches do not want anything to do with Messianics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It seems a bit odd to me that none of you is not even a bit disturbed by the fact that 31 churches rejected us. "

    May be it was G-d's way of saying that He doesn't want congregations that Judaize Gentiles / teach them that they are now Israelites and must obey Mosaic Torah, or those that teach that Christianity is pagan and Gentiles should leave churches? Just a thought...

    We had little trouble securing buildings from churches in our early days (we are in our own building now), one place even at first told us no, and then came back with "yes" after some soul searching. Many MJ places are renting space in churches as well (or used to do so).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Enjoyed this post. Dan, and your comments above. I would love to hear more about your life in Israel! And I would also love to hear Gene's background stories (in Russia?). More autobiographical posts wanted! I think it could help us understand one another better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan, I learned more about you on that one post than many moons of CARM and Zolaboard... Thank's for the post.
    Gene...for your information,Dan is the last one who would Judaize a Gentile....that's what the UMJC, FFOZ, etc do, because they've made it impossible for Gentiles to be one in the covenant with Jews. So the Gentiles have to become Jewish to join. That's Judaizing by defintion.
    I'm afraid that the fundamental issue with us from a Gentile origin who have joined Israel is conviction by the Holy Spirit to follow the Torah....
    ...which is how we express our committment ot Messiah ( האמין = give support) [not just 'believe'.., and without which commitment to Messiah and His faithfulness no one will be saved.
    Belonging to Israel is not based on particular deeds, but on faithfulness. One may know to do right, and does it, and it is faithfulness. Another is ignorant of everything that is right, but is nontheless faithful to Messiah and His faithfulness. That's the only criteria for belonging there is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I'm afraid that the fundamental issue with us from a Gentile origin who have joined Israel is conviction by the Holy Spirit to follow the Torah"

    Daniel, what "Israel" have you joined? I think you've joined your own self-defined "Israel," an ethereal "spiritual Israel" of the like-minded Gentiles, where an occasion actual Jewish presence may be a rare bonus, but certainly not a requirement. I call this Israel: "Replacement Israel." It's the same spiritual "Israel" as in many parts of historic Christianity - the only difference is that you claim to follow Torah (as you define it). That's not the Israel of the Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gene, Can you say anything positive? Is there anything common ground here. However, you define Israel I do not think matters at the moment...do you believe that those who belong to it are members by faithfulness (hab. 2:4)...or by some particular deeds of the Torah.
    And, if you think the latter, can you please name the deeds that exclude or include the one in Israel so we can be exactly clear which rituals define an Israelite from your perspective?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daniel, Shalom and welcom to my blog. No time no see...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And, if you think the latter, can you please name the deeds that exclude or include the one in Israel so we can be exactly clear which rituals define an Israelite from your perspective?"

    Israelite: a flesh and blood ethnic Jew born to Jewish parents. I think that's about sums it up (whether that person lives up to this spiritually it's between the Israelite and G-d). (On a separate note, a Jew, however, can also be a proselyte to Judaism who has undergone conversion by a Jewish beit din. He/she's a ger, not an Israelite or Hebrew (in an actual, historical or ethnic sense).)

    ReplyDelete
  17. O.k. Gene, so it is obvious that being a member of the Israel you speak of is not

    by "faithfulness". It is quite true that not everyone who is part of Israel now

    will be part in the end, because "faithfulness" is a divine criteria that will be

    enforced:

    NAU Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE

    DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
    (Rom 11:26 NAU).

    So it looks like "faithfulness" is still the Almighy's criteria.


    Your write, "a Jew, however, can also be a proselyte to Judaism who has undergone

    conversion by a Jewish beit din. He/she's a ger, not an Israelite or Hebrew (in an

    actual, historical or ethnic sense)."

    So you imply a "Jew" by conversion is not a Jew (in the historical and ethnic

    sense). Such a Jew really comes from a Gentile background, and yet you call him a

    "Jew"---with a definition that excludes ethnicity. And I think we could use the

    word "Israelite" in the same way, actually with more ease,--without implying

    ethnicity.

    Yet, such a Jew, who is a non-Jew, you would surely include as a fellow citizen

    with the covenant people.

    Yet, on the other hand you are excluding some non-Jews who approach the covenant

    by faithfulness, while including some non-Jews who approach and meet your criteria-

    -and I have yet to hear you say "faithfulness" is one of them---.

    Non-Jews who come by your defintion you allow to be citizens..
    But other non-Jews who come by faithfulness to Torah you exclude.

    So on what basis do you say some non Jews can be citizens joined with the

    covenant, and others cannot be citizens joined with the covenant, even though they

    approach by faithfulness?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan Benzvi:

    I enjoyed reading this post. It is definitely interesting how your relationship with this LDS community has developed.

    Yahnatan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks Yahnatan,

    It is always good hearing from you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Yet, on the other hand you are excluding some non-Jews who approach the covenant by faithfulness, while including some non-Jews who approach and meet your criteria- -and I have yet to hear you say "faithfulness" is one of them---. Non-Jews who come by your defintion you allow to be citizens.. But other non-Jews who come by faithfulness to Torah you exclude."

    Daniel... it's quite simple, and until One-Law folks understand this, they will continue to harp at the wind in anger at the Jewish people. There's a great deal of difference between those who wish to break into house (of Israel) through a window vs. those who choose to enter through the front door, those who knock and politely ask permission to enter, those who respect the hosts and behave according to their wishes (instead of demanding entry and complaining). Those who choose to pretend to be the rightful owners of the property and ask questions later are illegal squatters. I trust that you understand my analogy quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gene,

    Did you by any chance wrote the book of Cinderella? I can see that you are pretty good at fairy tales....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gene you have inspired me to post on my blog a response based on Rom. 2:26. Here is an excerpt:

    The key to Paul here is that he is using "circumcision" as a synonym for remnant Israel. This is the Israel that has saved status, wherein citizenship is based on faithfulness. It does not include all of Israel, but only the part approaching the covenant through faithfulness. So when he says that the physical circumcision of the transgressor is regarded as uncircumcision, he is saying that this Israelite is not part of remnant Israel. (He is not saying is not an Israelite though.) And when he says the uncircumcision of the man approaching in faithfulness is counted as circumcision, he means that person is reckoned as a citizen of remnant Israel. It does not make the former Gentile ethnically Jewish, but by faithfulness the non-Jew gains the same rights, privileges, and citizenship status, in the kingdom of the Almighty as fellow Jews who are part of the remnant by Israel by faithfulness.

    That about sums it up. My thanks to the Jews who have left the door open, Dan B., Marc P., and Paul of tarsus.

    http://torahtimes-org.blogspot.com/2010/08/circumcision-and-citizenship-in-remant.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daniel, I am glad I proved to be an inspiration to you.

    However, instead of finding a solution to the One-Law quandary, you have jumped to some incorrect conclusions. Allow me to explain. What Shaul was referring to in regards to "spiritually" circumcised Gentiles is the fact that they, through faith in Yeshua, are now "sons of Abraham" by faith. This being the case, it is a far stretch to extend Paul's image of adoption by Abraham by making Gentiles "spiritual" children of Ya'akov/Israel as well (and in fact, nowhere do we have Paul making THAT connection) - therefore, Gentiles are NOT Israelites (they are never called that in the Bible, not even "by faith"), they are NOT Israel (they are never referred to as such in the Bible, spiritually or physically speaking), and there are NOT obligated to live as Jews (as both the Apostle Paul and all of the elders and others apostles - to mention the Holy Spirit himself - made abundantly clear.

    That said, Gentile, those who became sons of Abraham by faith in Israel's Messiah, are grafted into the nourishing tree of faith and promises made to Abraham, culminating in Yeshua, and are now citizen of Commonwealth of Israel (which is made up of all of the Gentile nations who by the grace of G-d entered the Kingdom with Israel as the head of these nations and Messiah as the King of Israel and the Commonwealth).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gene you are missing the fact that Paul made it quite clear that a non-Jew is not classed with the circumcised unless he is being faithful by keeping the Torah:

    So when the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

    So it is not even possible to be "spiritually" circumcised without keeping the Torah. I disagree with your concept of "spiritually circumcised" since it is so obviously antinomian.

    You are also overlooking the fact that "faith in Yeshua" is not what Paul says. He says the "faithfulness of Yeshua" (אמונת ישוע), and he does not say "believe in", but the Greek means "commit to" Yeshua agreeing with the Hebrew sense of האמין , "give support to" Yeshua (Gen. 15:6). He is refering to the covenant faithfulness, and the need to give support (commit to) YHWH's covenant faithfulness.

    So with all due respect, the Churchianity theological stuff off the tip of your fingers is bunk.

    Yes, I noticed you equivocation with the word "Commonwealth" from the KJV of Eph. 2:12 at the end of your post. You separated Israel and Commonwealth into two entities. That's not how even the KJV has it, "commonwealth" goes with Israel, and the Greek even clearer: "citizenship of Israel".

    Let me explain a bit further:

    Gene: //and are now citizen of Commonwealth of Israel //

    Since in the Greek "Commonwealth" (πολιτειας) already means "citizenship" the English construction you are using to equivocate (shift meanings) would go like this, "now citizen of the citizenship of Israel"

    You then proceed to separate citizenship from Israel. Citizenship is not something you can divorce from Israel. The word commonwealth, by the way is used in the sense of the "Commonwealth of Virginia" (one state, one set of citizens of the state"

    ReplyDelete
  25. "So with all due respect, the Churchianity theological stuff off the tip of your fingers is bunk."

    Daniel, you are a Christian, so I don't see why you felt you needed to mock Christianity.

    "You then proceed to separate citizenship from Israel. Citizenship is not something you can divorce from Israel. The word commonwealth, by the way is used in the sense of the "Commonwealth of Virginia" (one state, one set of citizens of the state"

    Daniel... I have a simple solution that will help us all see the true meaning of the word "Commonwealth". Do you acknowledge that in the Kingdom there will be other nations besides Israel, that these nations will living in their own lands, that they will still have their own names, that they will be coming to the physical Land of Israel, traveling from their own lands, year after year, to worship the King... or not?

    If you do realize that G-d will preserve the nations as nations, and he will preserve Israel as Israel and head of the nations, and that nations are NEVER called Israel or Gentiles are never referred to as "Israelites", you'll realize what the Commonwealth of Israel is all about and what the better translation of Eph. 2:12 is. It's about the Kingdom of G-d with Israel as the head of the nations. Gentile nations are citizen-nations of that Kingdom. As simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gene, you have yet to show me any fruits of being a follower of Messiah. You accuse me of mocking Christinaity. That's a lawless charge. I didn't mock. I only disagreed with your particular points based on the general apostacy that is known as organized Churchianity. And I'd rather call it Churchianity, because it doesn't deserve to have Messiah's name associated with it, even in its Greek form.
    Many will say Lord Lord....

    Because you still follow the theological system of Churchianity with its antinomian roots you are preaching lawlessness to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. That's the deep foundation of your error, and that's why you entirely ignore Paul in Rom. 2:26. A non-Jew cannot be reckoned as "circumcised" in any sense without standing by the Torah to uphold it. That's what Paul conditioned his reckoning on. You choose to ignore, but its the main point.

    What the divine program for the nations will be in the age to come is open for interpretation, however, in this age the opportunity was made to join Israel before the Kingdom is Established.

    But once again, I must point out that the basis for your predicted disgreement with these explanations is that it founded in antinomian Church theology concerning the Torah, and that you for that reason, you have totally ignored Paul's condition for being counted as "spiritually" circumcised, which is to follow the Torah (Rom. 2:26).

    KJV Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29 KJV)

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Because you still follow the theological system of Churchianity"

    Daniel... what the heck are you talking about? It's a tenet of Judaism (and the consensus of the first Jewish Messianic leaders but chiefly of Ruach HaKodesh himself) that Gentiles are not obligated to live as Jews nor are they required to observe all the mitzvot (or the traditions) that Jews are required to observe! At the same time I hold and teach that Jews themselves MUST follow all the mitzvot and they should also follow decrees of Jewish sages and traditions of our fathers, so your "Christian antinomian verbage" doesn't quite hit the intended target, does it?

    As Paul wrote in Galatians 5:3:

    "Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Torah."

    What can we derive from apostle's words? A man who is not circumcised (not legally a Jew) is NOT obligated to obey the whole Torah. It's quite simple really.

    "Gene, you have yet to show me any fruits of being a follower of Messiah. "

    Show me yours, and I'll show you mine! I am serious - I think you should take out a log from your own eye before making such an accusation, Daniel.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gene,

    Why did I say, you haven't shown any fruit yet? That's because, so far I cannot tell the difference between your theology and that of Catholics, or Protestants, or Orthodox Jews. You have not clearly set yourself apart from their heresies. Maybe you can. What you have shown, however, is a lack of hermanuetical integrity and a penchant for pushing torah keeping non-Jews, who could be your closest brothers and allies, away. Maybe hatred isn't your motive, but the behaviour is hatred.

    I see that you are going to permenantly avoid the fact that Rom 2:26 says that the non-Jew who keeps Torah will be counted as "circumcised". The non-Jew who has no intention of keeping the Torah cannot, of course, be counted as circumcised.
    Keep in mind that you dogded one text, lets take a look at one you've brought up yourself, Gal. 5:3. The problem with this text is that you took it out of context. Here is the context:

    KJV Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4 KJV)

    To be justified by law means putting your good works on the balances of divine justice and hoping that it will balance with the sin debt on the other side of the balance so that the debt is paid by the good works.
    This form of justification makes no room for the faithfulness of Messiah! On the other hand Paul qualifies his statement:

    Galatians 5:6 For in Yeshua HaMashiakh neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; UNLESS (if not) faithfulness which worketh by love. (Gal 5:6).

    So if one has Messiah's faithfulness, then one is not trying to put their own works into the balance! In that case, keeping any commandment is done in love. That includes circumcision.

    The reason Paul says "indebted to obey the whole Torah" is that enough works cannot be put into the balance. In fact, if you were totally obedient to the whole Torah that would not be enough to justify the balances. You've got to consider that the debt of past sins is unpayable by present righteousness.

    Messiah's payment goes into the balances. So now that this is the case, we can talk about obligation. One is obligated to be faithful to Messiah, which is not to commit the sins of the high hand, transgression. One may sin a sin of ignorance or circumstance, but this does not nullify one's faithfulness. If you've ever read Numbers 15, then you know that the sin of the high hand nullifies the payment for sin. Yet, shall we say that a person is not obligated to avoid sins of ignorance or circumstance if at all possible? Not at all.
    So for you Jews who know the Torah in your consciences, you will be committing the sin of the high hand (transgression, PESHA, AVON) if you break it. Such sin will nullify your faithfulness. On the other hand, non-Jews, who do not know the Torah like you do, will not be committing transgression by breaking laws that would be transgression to you. So they will not be nullifying their faithfulness to Messiah, —their commitment to Messiah which is necessary to appropriate HIS faithfulness on the cross.
    So the principle is that the uncircumcision of the non-Jews is not an expression of unfaithfulness for them. So then, the obligation of what it takes to remain in the covenant differ according to maturity, but the obligation to uphold and stand by the Torah does not. So when the non-Jew learns more of the covenant, and becomes convicted to obey, then when you tell them they do not have to obey, you are sinning against their conscience and leading them into transgression.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Very happy to see Daniel Gregg here sharing his gifted logic, wisdom, and scholarship. May we arrive at clarity on these important issues........and hopefully not take offense with one another as we share our views.

    Gene, I think we would all benefit from hearing a bit of your testimony about how you came to faith in Yeshua. Was it through the witness of Christians? Messianic Jews? We know nothing of your journey or background. Mine is written up on my blog if anyone is interested:

    My Testimony

    ReplyDelete
  30. "That's because, so far I cannot tell the difference between your theology and that of Catholics, or Protestants, or Orthodox Jews. You have not clearly set yourself apart from their heresies."

    Daniel, I find One-Law Judiazing of the Gentiles AND its nullifying of Jewish covenantal distinctives FAR more heretical and damaging to the Body today and in the long run, and its hijacking of the Messianic Jewish movement as something that must be counteracted with education. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Jews have done far more good, loving things for others than many in the One-Law crowd who hate and look down on all of them as "pagan Churchians" or "those Pharisees".

    "So when the non-Jew learns more of the covenant, and becomes convicted to obey, then when you tell them they do not have to obey, you are sinning against their conscience and leading them into transgression."

    You may be convicted all you want - for yourself - it's only when you start promoting your teaching that is contrary to both scripture and decrees of the apostles by insisting that Gentiles must obey Mosaic Law and live as Jews to live a life pleasing to G-d instead of living in the freedom G-d gave them, that's where you are going to have a problem with me and other Jews. Thankfully, many former "one-law" Gentiles have already woken up to this, and with FFOZ brave lead have left this teaching far behind them. I suspect that many others will follow when they see the damage left in the wake of this heretical, divisive teaching.

    "when you tell them they do not have to obey, you are sinning against their conscience and leading them into transgression."

    Daniel, I am in a good company then, with the elders and apostles of Jerusalem. Galatians may have used the "conscience" defense as well to justify their wanting to be under Torah.

    "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with ANYTHING beyond the following requirements..." (Acts 15:28)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with ANYTHING beyond the following requirements..." (Acts 15:28)

    It goes on to say we will gradually learn the rest in the synagogues on the Sabbath day......

    ReplyDelete
  32. "It goes on to say we will gradually learn the rest in the synagogues on the Sabbath day...... "

    Maureen, will all due respect (I've grown to like you:), it just doesn't say that there at all, not even close. Instead, it says: "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." (Acts 15:21)

    David Stern interprets this enigmatic statement from James the following way (I am paraphrasing) "Preaching of Moses, although widely available from the earliest time, didn't open a wide door for Gentiles to come HaShem and his salvation" - so, as James right before that says: "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to G-d."

    This ties very well with Peter's words right before that: "Now then, why do you try to test G-d by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

    One-Law advocates should heed Peter's and James' words - do not put on Gentiles the Yoke that Jews to whom it was given couldn't bear - it was never given to Gentiles, it's just not G-d's plan. It doesn't mean Gentiles are to live lawless lives or that nothing from Torah is applicable to them, however. Many devout Christians today live very morally upright lives dedicated to service of G-d - without putting themselves under Mosaic covenant.

    Israelites (Jews) are obligated to Torah and yet time and time againt most of us have failed to live up to it (the yoke of Torah). Even the G-d-fearers in the synagogues who already practiced many of the aspects of Torah (being close to Jewish communities) understood that they WERE NOT obligated to the whole of Torah. Gentiles coming to G-d through Yeshua are not bound by Mosaic Covenant given to Israel either, but are accepted by G-d without become de-facto Jews. We have whole books in NT hammering that home over and over, and condemning over and over those who tried to bring Gentiles under Mosaic Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gene, we have a fundamental difference in understanding what these Scriptures are saying.

    What about Yeshua's words that His yoke is easy and His burden light?

    This "heavy yoke" that even the Jews could not bear must mean something else than Torah commandments. Could it be the additional Pharisaic fences and stringencies piled on which eventually became what I call "Rabbinical Judaism"?

    Did you grown up as an Orthodox Jew? Is this lifestyle second nature to you because you had community? How do you feel about those Jews who grew up secular being required in your theology to take on the "whole Law" (Scripture and oral tradition) from Day 1 of their teshuvah. Don't they need the same learning curve as Gentiles coming to faith?

    I enjoyed your phrase "mitzvah envy"..............but really I do not envy all the stringencies and requirements of Orthodox Judaism. If some want to embrace that, it is fine with me. But I think taking Yeshua's light yoke is fine also.........and much more do-able in my situation.

    Shabbat Shalom......and I like you too, Gene. : )

    ReplyDelete
  34. After reading Tim Hegg's explanation of the Acts 15 prohibitions, I have to disagree. Tim tells us that the prohibitions are all from the oral Torah. I have to disagree. James and Peter could not have laid any of the oral Torah on the faithful, Jew or Gentile as an obligation (cf. Deut. 12:32). Yet this is what Tim thinks the prohibitions are.

    1. blood consumption is clearly prohibited in Torah. (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 7:26)
    2. things strangled (TREPHA) are prohibited for citizens of Israel. (Ex 22:31). Anything that was not bled out is considered strangled.
    3. sexual immorality.
    4. the idol sacrifice.

    The the last item might be questioned. However, like "bowing" "eating an idol sacrifice" was considered an act of "worship", and is therefore included in commandments not to worship idols. This is confirmed, 1. by the description of the sin Balaam induced Israel to, and 2. Yeshua's commentary and repeat of the commandment. The commandment is to "slay every one his men that were joined unto Baal peor. (cf. Num 25:3, 5). Num. 25:2 shows that eating the idol sacrifice joined one to the idol, and so also Paul 1Cor 10:21.

    Therefore, none of the prohibitions are oral Torah, if some may be interpreted as only oral Torah, such an interpretation cannot be dogmatically insisted. However, we may insist that Deut. 12:32 prevents the prohibitions being so interpreted.

    What is at the root of Tim's mistake is his Calvinism. The first point of Calvinism is "T" for Total Depravity. The total depravity doctrine erases the distinction between the sin of ignorance or circumstance which does not destroy man's capacity for a faithful commitment to YHWH, and the high handed sin and or very serious --- called transgression or iniquity (see Numbers 15), which does prevent a commitment to Messiah.
    The explanation of Acts 15, as I pointed out before, has to do with the fact that new converts are more ignorant, and cannot therefore be transgressing the Torah if they sin particular sins, which would be transgression for Jews.
    Acts 15:11, "But through the grace of YHWH---Yeshua, we are committing, to be saved, in the same way as they also are."
    This is to say that committing one's loyalty to Yeshua is what pistis/emunah is to "support" him. And that does not include transgression. Every other sin the new converts were invovled in could be classed as not-transgression (exilic circumstances, or non-transgressive ignorances), except the one's listed in the decree which Greek society had no consciousness about, and therefore, was necessary for the council to point out as a precondition indicative of any true commitment to Messiah.
    So the Calvinist doctrine keeps Tim from explaining things. An aditional reason is that Calvinists define salvation as pistis/believe alone outside of its Hebrew context. This removes Torah as being a necessary part of the commitment to Messiah to appropriate the divine mercy (cf. Exodus 20:6). Loving Him is necesseary. It does not merit the mercy, but is a condition nevertheless by which the judge decides to administrate justice by showing mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Now some particular remarks about Gene's posts:

    Gene, you didn't respond to my first explanation of Acts 15. I guess that's because you can't refute it, just like you did not respond to Romans 2:26, because you can't refute the fact that it is the keepers of the Torah that are counted as circumcised. That leaves you with name calling. Let's hear it for "Judaizer" shall we? And false charges about nullifying covenantal privleges. Paul is the one who pointed out that Jews nullify their covenantal election by transgression. Only the remnant of Israel is to be saved. Isn't that clear to you? Or have you become a universalist? I think we need to coin a new term "hypocritical-universalism" for your doctrine, because your doctrine will say that all Jews are saved, and only some Gentiles (who are not Judaiziers, I presume) will be saved --- because of their election. That makes your doctrine just as Calvinist as Calvin.
    I don't care what you've found, because its not Scriptural, and you can't back it up with the Word, and when you try you loose every point, as you will continue to loose every point with me. Yet you are a slave to Church tradition. There is no freedom in denying non-Jews the blessings of Sabbath and eating the right food, and getting in closer touch with their inheritance in the age to come ordained by YHWH as part of Israel. Torah liberates and gives life to the one who does it, if you have forgotten. Which is better to choose, life or death... see Deut. 30?
    The fundamental problem is that you don't seem to know that salvation requires an abiding commitment to love Messiah by keeping his commandments, and that this requirement is the same for Jew as for non-Jew. I have yet to hear you say it, but as a so called Messianic Jew I have yet to hear you say your election is conditioned faithful abiding in the Word. See John 15, John 14:21; 1John 2:3; Hab. 2:4.
    You call me a heritic. That's just name calling. You've yet to show I've taken any text out of context, or broken any translation/interpretation rules explaining them.

    Acts 15:28 --- "not to burdern you with ANYTHING beyond ...." See you fail the fundamental point. What faithfulness requires varies according to knowledge. That was then. Now is now, and now we non-Jews know more. Why do you suppose that YHWH did not lay circumcision as a burden on the children of Israel between the sin of the golden calf and crossing the Jordan? Could it be that there is a time for everything? Could it be that the children of the rebels were too young to understand?


    //David Stern interprets this enigmatic statement from James the following way (I am paraphrasing) "Preaching of Moses, although widely available from the earliest time, didn't open a wide door for Gentiles to come HaShem and his salvation" - so, as James right before that says: "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to G-d."//
    That's why James and the council remedied the decifiency the current 'Preaching of Moses' and made it clear that Moses never meant new converts to know everything and do everything before they could be citizens of the remnant of Israel.
    ... The Yoke business, you took out of contexts Gene, and I agree with everything Tim Hegg said on that.
    ... You have wholesale corrupted books of the NT translated by corrupt translators. Yes, even your David Stern disagrees with them. He translates Rom 3:22, "through the faithfulness of Yeshua". How long did it say "faith in/of Jesus" before that? Since that's the case, how do you know the corrections are finished? You don't.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I don't care what you've found, because its not Scriptural, and you can't back it up with the Word, and when you try you loose every point, as you will continue to loose every point with me. Yet you are a slave to Church tradition."

    Hey Daniel, you're welcome to your own pseudo-Israelitish private religion where in your mind everyone is wrong but you and you know your "Judaism" better than Jews. If you, in true Calvinistic fashion (here it is, back at you!:), have already predetermined that I and just about every other Jewish follower of Yeshua "will continue to loose every point..." with you and at the same time tell me that you do not care about my findings, what's the point of our discussing anything then? Waste of everyone's time.

    "You have wholesale corrupted books of the NT translated by corrupt translators."

    Again, anytime you start thinking that everyone out there is wrong, but you and your little circle of like-minded coreligionists got it right, it's a high time to do a reality check, friend - your are about to turn into yet another "the only true church of G-d" denomination of Protestant Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am with Gene on this.

    Daniel start debating under the regular rules of engagement.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Gene,

    The point of discussing is to educate the third parties. I don't think you are going to agree with me. You haven't offered any new points based on Scripture. So I'll wait until you attempt it, and then decide whether its worth replying.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ok. Dan,
    Do you have any particular rules posted?

    Im not sure what you meant by "I am with Gene on this" Gene took two remarks of mine out of context expanded on them to mean things I never intended. So even I don't agree with what he made them into.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Here are some "rules of engagement" I found on Derek's blog.........would these be good guidelines for us all?

    Ethics of Discussion:

    –Since God says “you shall rebuke, yes rebuke, your fellow” (Lev 19:7), I will consider it important to challenge harmful ideas and actions, but in a manner consistent with love as shown below.

    –Believing that “love without criticism is not love” (Genesis Rabbah 54:3) and “faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Prov 27:6), I will speak gently but truthfully, considering the person I am challenging as a friend and not an enemy.

    –Since I must be more concerned with the speck in my eye (Matt 7:3) I will consider myself unworthy of merciless judgment, especially knowing the mercy of my Creator.

    –So that others will not think I condone a harmful idea or action, I will not let it go without a challenge.

    –I will make it my goal to overlook personal slights since he who forgives an offense seeks love (Prov 17:9).

    –I will always seek to correct myself before I correct others (Talmud, Bava Mezia 107b).

    –I will seek to correct others gently, patiently, and if possible to avoid embarrassing, privately.

    –I will try to be winsome in challenging others, believing that “the righteous person comes with pleasant, gentle words and draws people to Torah” (Midrash Proverbs 10:20).

    –Confine criticism to specific words and actions; do not generalize. (For example, do not say, “why do you speak hatefully?” implying that someone habitually does so).

    –Ask myself, “Am I being fair or am I exaggerating?”

    –When criticized or challenged, I will not be defensive, but will consider and admit partial or complete wrongs.

    –I will regard all people I discuss with as sharers in God’s image and likeness and as potential teachers.

    –I will practice the rule of love given by our Messiah: treat others as I would want to be treated (Matt 7:12).

    http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/ethics-of-discussion/

    ReplyDelete