Where the line is drawn

[DavidHaCohen]

Shalom to you all!
Even though I'm Jewish, I'm also interested in studying religious phenomena. I am particularly interested in what you call Messianic Judaism. From my researches on the Internet, I have found two major groups going by the name of 'Messianic Jewish'. One group is basically mainstream protestantism with Jewish look-and-feel, either in order to make it easier to convert Jews, and/or to allow such Jewish Christians to, well, remain culturally Jewish. This seems to be the case of Jews for Jesus and several others.

I also see a second group which is actually distinct from protestantism and sees itself as in a sense continuing the reformation on its journey out of "Roman Christianity" (please forgive me if I'm not using the accurate terms) and back to "Original Jerusalem Christianity". In other words, back to being a Jewish sect with strong essene influence and its own Messiah. Is that correct? (:help: )

Now, my question goes to the second group. I can understand the spiritual path you've chosen, and in fact I admire your bravery. However, one thing I still don't understand. And that's why I'm asking you to help me understand. I don't mean to debate or accuse anyone. I respect everyone's religious choices. I genuinely seek to understand this religious phenomenon. Now, from what I've read and heard concerning the second group, its biggest beef is with Constantine, the first papacy, etc, right? This groups seems to disagree with, well, most of the latter teachings of Constantine and/or other founders of Roman Christianity. That includes disagreeing with their denial of the Jewish Torah, their new holidays and ordinances.

But, what makes me really curious is that the same people who are probably the greatest critics of these Church Fathers usually accept without any questions the canon of Holy Books of the New Testament that was selected by them. As far as I know, this ancient Christian-Jewish sect some are trying to go back to was already extinct, or near extinction when the canon was chosen. From what I have read, it was Rome that ultimately conducted the canonization of the books, no? So, after boring you to death with my long introduction, my question is: why is it that the canon is where the line is drawn? If everything else is revised, why is the canon left intact?

Take the book of Enoch for instance. We Jews don't officially accept it, but I've had rabbi's tell me that it was authentic. We even include some of it in the Holy Zohar. And this is probably the "most Christian" of all Jewish books (which is probably why it wasn't used at shuls in the first place). Why was it left out of the canon? What about other gospels and early writings? Why isn't this restoration movement seeking to restore those?

Again, I'm not debating, just asking a sincere question, well, some sincere questions. If I'm breaking any rules, please let me know. Thank you! :thumbsup:

Dave

[Tishri1]

Hi David, I'm no theologen(can't even spell it right hehehe) but all I can say as a Torah Submissive Messianic (against the Romanisation of the early church) I don't nessessarily dismiss the early extra biblical writtings at all and for that matter I also read the Mishna and Talmud too... so maybe we should start a thread yes? I wonder if you are alowed to start a thread somewhere else in CF and direct us all to it via a fellowship post?....are there ANY places where you are alowed to post freely?:groupray:

[talmidim]

Now, my question goes to the second group. I can understand the spiritual path you've chosen, and in fact I admire your bravery. However, one thing I still don't understand. And that's why I'm asking you to help me understand. I don't mean to debate or accuse anyone. I respect everyone's religious choices. I genuinely seek to understand this religious phenomenon. Now, from what I've read and heard concerning the second group, its biggest beef is with Constantine, the first papacy, etc, right? This groups seems to disagree with, well, most of the latter teachings of Constantine and/or other founders of Roman Christianity. That includes disagreeing with their denial of the Jewish Torah, their new holidays and ordinances.

But, what makes me really curious is that the same people who are probably the greatest critics of these Church Fathers usually accept without any questions the canon of Holy Books of the New Testament that was selected by them. As far as I know, this ancient Christian-Jewish sect some are trying to go back to was already extinct, or near extinction when the canon was chosen. From what I have read, it was Rome that ultimately conducted the canonization of the books, no? So, after boring you to death with my long introduction, my question is: why is it that the canon is where the line is drawn? If everything else is revised, why is the canon left intact?

Take the book of Enoch for instance. We Jews don't officially accept it, but I've had rabbi's tell me that it was authentic. We even include some of it in the Holy Zohar. And this is probably the "most Christian" of all Jewish books (which is probably why it wasn't used at shuls in the first place). Why was it left out of the canon? What about other gospels and early writings? Why isn't this restoration movement seeking to restore those?

Again, I'm not debating, just asking a sincere question, well, some sincere questions. If I'm breaking any rules, please let me know. Thank you! :thumbsup:

Dave
Shalom Dave and Greetings in His Name,

You are essentially correct in your suppositions, although I personally see three distinct categories of Messianic. There are those that lean towards the doctrines of mainstream Christianity and those that lean towards Rabbinical Judaism. The third (and by far the smallest) that you seem to have missed, has trouble with both Constantine Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. While leaning toward the Essene, they reject (to the best of their ability), the traditions of man (specifically those that conflict with scripture by adding to or taking away) that seem to have grown up around both Christianity and Judaism.

I understand that there are a great many goy in all camps that are enamored with playing dress-up "Jewish style", it should be remembered that playing is how children learn. I do not judge these persons. I encourage them. Some will over time, grow in their understanding and love of Elohim, the Jewish people and Y'srael. This is desirable.

While the Tanakh has remained essentially the same for thousands of years, the same cannot be said of the Brit Chadashah. The books of Yasher, Enoch, etc., are interesting and in some cases valuable in establishing context or providing confirmation to things hinted at in cannon, they cannot stand on their own merit for reasons best stated by the historical record (the rabbinical writings). The same isn't true of the Brit Chadashah.

The first century writings of the talmidim of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef are manifold and varied. However, all of the cannon of the Brit Chadashah can be reconstructed from quotes by the early "church fathers", except for eleven verses. These writings, without exception, occurred prior to the adoption of Christianity as a state religion and the perversions of its doctrines. This cannot be said of other books and epistles such as the writings of Barnabus. It is increasingly difficult over time, to verify the authenticity of some of these writings.

The Early churches and Christians of means sought the writing of verifiable apostolic origin to add to their local treasures. Churches would re-copy these early works and distribute them (with no certain pattern) to the major centers of worship (Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, etc). This process provided a basis for canon long before the council of Trent.

The process of establishing the Roman Catholic canon is well documented, albeit biased. And there are varied accounts as to how that final process established the Protestant canon. I think it safe to say that the Protestants did what they could, when they could and what they thought was right. With so much time gone by and so many old manuscripts lost or in dispute, the canon of the third century church (with revisions mentioned) remains by default. The "apocryphal writings" occupy a similar place in the Brit Chadashah as they do with the Tanakh.

Concerning your question about the Zohor, I think this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar says it all.
The fact that the Zohar was found by one lone individual, Moses de Leon, and that it refers to historical events of the post-Talmudical period, caused the authenticity of the work to be questioned from the outset.
At best, it is neither apostolic not messianic in origin or content. That alone excludes it from canon. Do you see these facts differently? If so PM me and I will research it.

b'Shalom V'Ahavah

[Bruce101]

I honestly believe that there are many (maybe?) of us that seek other writings and like to judge for themselves. I question everything, whether it is accepted already, or not.
I am not a person that is good at "following the leader".
Bruce

[talmidim]

I honestly believe that there are many (maybe?) of us that seek other writings and like to judge for themselves. I question everything, whether it is accepted already, or not.
I am not a person that is good at "following the leader".
BruceWhat he said. :thumbsup:

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Now, my question goes to the second group. I can understand the spiritual path you've chosen, and in fact I admire your bravery. However, one thing I still don't understand. And that's why I'm asking you to help me understand. I don't mean to debate or accuse anyone. I respect everyone's religious choices. I genuinely seek to understand this religious phenomenon. Now, from what I've read and heard concerning the second group, its biggest beef is with Constantine, the first papacy, etc, right? This groups seems to disagree with, well, most of the latter teachings of Constantine and/or other founders of Roman Christianity. That includes disagreeing with their denial of the Jewish Torah, their new holidays and ordinances.


I guess you can say "christianity" was invented by constantine. My beliefs regaurding cannon ditto that of talmidim, and no I don't think reading other jewish text is wrong, though I think it's best if it can be read in context or otherwise not read at all.


I also see a second group which is actually distinct from protestantism and sees itself as in a sense continuing the reformation on its journey out of "Roman Christianity" (please forgive me if I'm not using the accurate terms) and back to "Original Jerusalem Christianity". In other words, back to being a Jewish sect with strong essene influence and its own Messiah. Is that correct?

I don't think the Essenes were the primary influence of the original believers rather the Pharisees.

[DavidHaCohen]

Talmidim,
Thank you for your clarifying response. I don't question the fact that those books that make up the New Testament were indeed considered authoritative by the early Christian Church. However, my question is: are there not other books out there which could be equally inspired and were not counted in the canon for being too Jewish?

By the way when I mentioned the Holy Zohar, I didn't mean to imply that it should be considered canonical by Christians. Especially since it was written in the 2nd century CE by Shimon Bar Yochai, if my memory doesn't fail me. However, I meant that it quotes the Book of Enoch, or at least retells an enochian story. Several other Jewish sources quote Enoch as well. I spoke to my rabbi last night and asked him again for Enoch, and he said that it is a kabbalistic book that he considers Holy, but is not for everyone to use.

Regards,
Dave


Shalom Dave and Greetings in His Name,

You are essentially correct in your suppositions, although I personally see three distinct categories of Messianic. There are those that lean towards the doctrines of mainstream Christianity and those that lean towards Rabbinical Judaism. The third (and by far the smallest) that you seem to have missed, has trouble with both Constantine Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. While leaning toward the Essene, they reject (to the best of their ability), the traditions of man (specifically those that conflict with scripture by adding to or taking away) that seem to have grown up around both Christianity and Judaism.

I understand that there are a great many goy in all camps that are enamored with playing dress-up "Jewish style", it should be remembered that playing is how children learn. I do not judge these persons. I encourage them. Some will over time, grow in their understanding and love of Elohim, the Jewish people and Y'srael. This is desirable.

While the Tanakh has remained essentially the same for thousands of years, the same cannot be said of the Brit Chadashah. The books of Yasher, Enoch, etc., are interesting and in some cases valuable in establishing context or providing confirmation to things hinted at in cannon, they cannot stand on their own merit for reasons best stated by the historical record (the rabbinical writings). The same isn't true of the Brit Chadashah.

The first century writings of the talmidim of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef are manifold and varied. However, all of the cannon of the Brit Chadashah can be reconstructed from quotes by the early "church fathers", except for eleven verses. These writings, without exception, occurred prior to the adoption of Christianity as a state religion and the perversions of its doctrines. This cannot be said of other books and epistles such as the writings of Barnabus. It is increasingly difficult over time, to verify the authenticity of some of these writings.

The Early churches and Christians of means sought the writing of verifiable apostolic origin to add to their local treasures. Churches would re-copy these early works and distribute them (with no certain pattern) to the major centers of worship (Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, etc). This process provided a basis for canon long before the council of Trent.

The process of establishing the Roman Catholic canon is well documented, albeit biased. And there are varied accounts as to how that final process established the Protestant canon. I think it safe to say that the Protestants did what they could, when they could and what they thought was right. With so much time gone by and so many old manuscripts lost or in dispute, the canon of the third century church (with revisions mentioned) remains by default. The "apocryphal writings" occupy a similar place in the Brit Chadashah as they do with the Tanakh.

Concerning your question about the Zohor, I think this quote from says it all.

At best, it is neither apostolic not messianic in origin or content. That alone excludes it from canon. Do you see these facts differently? If so PM me and I will research it.

b'Shalom V'Ahavah

[DavidHaCohen]

Hi whitneysyed :wave:
Surely, the pharisees did influence early Christianity. I'd even risk saying Jesus probably had some rabbinic training, or at least was very well acquainted with the great Hillel.

However, there are many similarities between early Christianity and the Qumram communities. I recall seeing something about his cousin John the Baptist being an essene. I don't remember where I read that, but maybe you can google it up. :)

Dave


I don't think the Essenes were the primary influence of the original believers rather the Pharisees.

[DavidHaCohen]

Bruce,
I don't know if this is against the rules to say in the open forum or not, but which other books do you believe have some degree of inspiration? Just curious.

Dave

I honestly believe that there are many (maybe?) of us that seek other writings and like to judge for themselves. I question everything, whether it is accepted already, or not.
I am not a person that is good at "following the leader".
Bruce

[talmidim]

Talmidim,
Thank you for your clarifying response. I don't question the fact that those books that make up the New Testament were indeed considered authoritative by the early Christian Church. However, my question is: are there not other books out there which could be equally inspired and were not counted in the canon for being too Jewish?

By the way when I mentioned the Holy Zohar, I didn't mean to imply that it should be considered canonical by Christians. Especially since it was written in the 2nd century CE by Shimon Bar Yochai, if my memory doesn't fail me. However, I meant that it quotes the Book of Enoch, or at least retells an enochian story. Several other Jewish sources quote Enoch as well. I spoke to my rabbi last night and asked him again for Enoch, and he said that it is a kabbalistic book that he considers Holy, but is not for everyone to use.

Regards,
DaveShalom Dave,

It is my understanding that the animosity that grew up between the Jews and the Christians was a product of the "Jewish tax", and the vilifying of the Jews by Rome. This did not happen overnight, in fact it took the better part of a century. The basis for canon was formed before this terrible turn sadly came about. I have no doubt that the Constantine church of Rome would have affected anti-Jewish changes to scripture if they had understood scripture. Thankfully they were reading the Hebrew inspired Greek as though it had been written by Greeks and Romans, saving its Jewishness for those that understood.

I really do not understand the basis for your query. There is nothing more Jewish than the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph HaMeshiach and His talmidim. And by the way, the Essenes didn't consider the book of Enoch canon either. It is quoted in both Tanakh and Brit Chadashah but not included in the canon of either. The common thread of canon is this: All books of Tanakh and Brit Chadashah point to the Redeemer, Yeshua HaMeshiach.

[DavidHaCohen]

Talmidim,
Actually, fragments of the Book of Enoch have been found in the caves of Qumran.

As for my query, it is simply out of curiosity for the religious phenomenon of what you call Messianic Judaism. I'm still trying to understand it, and find it fascinating that people are actually attempting to restore the original Christianity from Jerusalem. As for Jesus being the Messiah, I mean no disrespect but I won't get into that because I'm a guest in the forum.

Shalom,
Dave


And by the way, the Essenes didn't consider the book of Enoch canon either.

[talmidim]

Talmidim,
Actually, fragments of the Book of Enoch have been found in the caves of Qumran.

As for my query, it is simply out of curiosity for the religious phenomenon of what you call Messianic Judaism. I'm still trying to understand it, and find it fascinating that people are actually attempting to restore the original Christianity from Jerusalem. As for Jesus being the Messiah, I mean no disrespect but I won't get into that because I'm a guest in the forum.

Shalom,
DaveRight on all points my friend, and sorry for being dense. BTW, I am trying to understand it too. If you get a handle on any of this, give me a heads up, k? Thanks for being a better guest than I, a host.

[Tishri1]

As for my query, it is simply out of curiosity for the religious phenomenon of what you call Messianic Judaism. I'm still trying to understand it, and find it fascinating that people are actually attempting to restore the original Christianity from Jerusalem.


Just to chitchat about this somemore, what do you think is going on with this phenomenon? It is amaising isn't it?:wave:

[DavidHaCohen]

Tishri1,
I'm not exactly unbiased, because I have a thing for religious studies. But yes, this quest for the original Jewish sect that gave birth to Christianity is fascinating. And I believe that as it matures, well, it might help to bring mutual cooperation and understanding between Jews and Christians.

In fact I have a funny story to tell about Messianic Judaism. I first heard of it when my brother Isaac called me up and asks me to help him out because my nephew was asking some tough questions. He sounded pretty alarmed on the phone so I decided to pay him a visit. He's not religious so whenever he wants to know something about religion he calls me up. So I went over to his place and found out what was making my brother so nervous. To my surprise my 8-year old nephew asked: Uncle Dave, can I have two religions just like my friend Mike? Kid's on drugs, I thought. But he had a good reason to ask such a question.

Danny (my nephew) reported that they were having a conversation about religion, and Danny said he was Jewish. Mike said, oh, me too. And Danny asked: But I thought you were Christian. And Mike said, oh, that too. I'm both. My nephew was fascinated with the idea.

After much talking, and calling up Mike's parents, we found out that Mike's family went to a messianic church. So, that's what triggered my interest in Messianic Judaism.

But, I wasn't able to convince my nephew that people can only have one religion and that Mike in fact had only one religion. Danny is very smart and wants to be on the safe side with the Almighty, so he thinks his odds are higher if he has two faiths. :D

Dave


Just to chitchat about this somemore, what do you think is going on with this phenomenon? It is amaising isn't it?:wave:

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Hi whitneysyed :wave:
Surely, the pharisees did influence early Christianity. I'd even risk saying Jesus probably had some rabbinic training, or at least was very well acquainted with the great Hillel.

However, there are many similarities between early Christianity and the Qumram communities. I recall seeing something about his cousin John the Baptist being an essene. I don't remember where I read that, but maybe you can google it up. :)

Dave

Early messianic jews probably came from all 3 sects and most likely didn't leave all thoughts behind. I googled it and the only thing I could find to show that he wasn't an essene was that he wore animal skins? I don't know much about Yeshua's educational training other than mentioned in the B'rit Hadashah, but what we do know is that several of the non-required traditions are mentioned which he kept. If you're a gentile like myself and grew up without knowing anything about jewish traditions other than hannukah then one could read the "new testament" several times over and not notice them, which is why churches celebrate passover once a month or so :D.

[Tishri1]

he thinks his odds are higher if he has two faiths. :D

Dave:D

[Tishri1]

I don't know much about Yeshua's educational training other than mentioned in the B'rit Hadashah, but what we do know is that several of the non-required traditions are mentioned which he kept. :D.What were they any I don't know about?:wave:

[Vaneeza Malkah]

What were they any I don't know about?:wave:

I don't know what you do know so I can't quite tell you. :P Channukah is one example...my mind is frozen right now so I can't think of any others, I'll come back here when it thaws out. ^_^

[AlikhnKwizad]

I am enjoying this thread. I've wondered how non-messianic Jews view the rise of MJism. Of course, there are those who would like to stone us to death. :( But I mean, the other segment of Jewish thought.

It will certainly have an impact on both world religions, and cultures...

I am curious to hear more from your perspective ! :)
Shalom!

[visionary]

Danny is very smart and wants to be on the safe side with the Almighty, so he thinks his odds are higher if he has two faiths.

DaveIt will be awesome when he realises that they are one and the same faith.

[talmidim]

It will be awesome when he realises that they are one and the same faith.YUP!