MJ response: “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells...

[GerTzedek]

The following is an excerpt from the MJAA/UMJC article by Dan Juster and Rus Resnik on the challenge of "One Law" theology to Messianic Judaism.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OneLawMovement.pdf

“One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you” (Exodus 12:49). In
context, it is clear that this “one law” does not apply to every stranger within Israel. Torah instructs that
the native born must eat the Passover, but the stranger must not eat it, unless he is circumcised. Only
through circumcision can he be incorporated into the people of Israel and their Torah. Without it, he
remains an outsider and is banned from the Passover (Ex. 12:38, 43-48).

In Leviticus 24:22, both the alien and the native Israelite are under the same prohibition against murder
and both are to suffer the same penalty. Numbers 15:16 instructs an alien who decides to bring a free
will offering to offer it in the same way as the native born. However, there is no requirement for him to
bring a free will offering. Other mandated offerings are not assigned to the alien.

[Wags]

I do hope you have actually taken the time to read the Tim Hegg's response to Rusnick paper.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf

[GerTzedek]

I do hope you have actually taken the time to read the Tim Hegg's response to Rusnick paper.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf
Of course I've read it. And disagree. But then, I disagree with lots of things that non-Messianics state. Usually, however, such groups don't try to jump on the Messianic bandwagon. Groups that believed in "One Law" have always been around, appearing and disappearing all down through history. But they've never tried to lay claim to being Messianic Judaism until the MJ movement started really going somewhere. Now all of a sudden, they want all the benefits of being part of a larger movement.

[Wags]

Of course I've read it. And disagree. But then, I disagree with lots of things that non-Messianics state. Usually, however, such groups don't try to jump on the Messianic bandwagon. Groups that believed in "One Law" have always been around, appearing and disappearing all down through history. But they've never tried to lay claim to being Messianic Judaism until the MJ movement started really going somewhere. Now all of a sudden, they want all the benefits of being part of a larger movement.

MJ isn't a denomination with one particular organization speaking on the behalf of all adherents - so how can you state that the beliefs presented by Tim Hegg and others are not Messianic Judaism?

What exactly is your personal definiation of who is a messianic?

[GerTzedek]

MJ isn't a denomination with one particular organization speaking on the behalf of all adherents - so how can you state that the beliefs presented by Tim Hegg and others are not Messianic Judaism?

MJ is a community.

Actually, i.e., the decisions of the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council ARE binding on all UMJC congregations. In Jewish thinking, things are not decided by individuals, but by the community. The idea that "I'll define things whatever way I wish" may be common in SOME gentile churches, but it is a foreign idea to Judaism.

What makes my posts different when it comes to this particular issue is that I'm not stating my private opinion, but the opinion of a community.

An Official Paper of the UMJC http://www.umjc.org/main/faq/conversion.aspx
The issue is not whether Gentiles should or must become Jews to attain full status in the Body of Messiah. All Messianic Jews agree this issue was settled by the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem in C.E. 49 (Acts 15). Believers from among the nations were not required to accept the yoke of the Torah, but only the basic biblical principles referred to as the Seven Laws of Noah in the rabbinic literature.
As I've stated many times, MJAA is the group that COINED the phase "Messianic Judaism." It is rightly theirs, and those they recognize, such as the UMJC. Others who adopt it who are not recognized by them are basically hijacking the title.

[visionary]

The Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council (MJRC) was formally established in May 2006. It consists of a group of ordained Messianic Jewish Rabbis and associated leaders who share a common vision for Messianic Jewish practice rooted in Torah, instructed by Tradition, and faithful to Messiah Yeshua in the twenty-first century. So in May 2006, this group take over the movement?

I am glad to see this... The MJRC had its beginnings five years earlier. At that time a set of Messianic Jewish leaders from New England invited some of their colleagues from outside the region to join them in working on a common set of halakhic standards for themselves and their congregations. While other areas of Messianic Jewish life are of profound importance, such as worship, ethics, education, and social concern, we believed that halakhic standards had received far less attention than their place in Messianic Jewish life warranted. From what I gather from this sight. They do not make a distinction of the bloodline of the MJ, just the desire to see the believers reveal expressions of Torah observance. The practices so listed do not exhaust the range of worthy expressions of Torah observance that a Messianic Jew might adopt, but provide concrete examples of the shape such observance could take. If fact there is nowhere that they made any distinction.
Like most Messianic Jews, we acknowledge the Torah as the constitution governing all Jewish life, and seek to obey it in accordance with the teaching, example, and redemptive work of Yeshua the Messiah while also drawing upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. This commitment to the Torah has motivated us to seek a common approach to its practical observance. All quotes taken from...
http://www.ourrabbis.org/main/content/view/13/27/

[Wags]

Actually, i.e., the decisions of the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council ARE binding on all UMJC congregations. In Jewish thinking, things are not decided by individuals, but by the community. The idea that "I'll define things whatever way I wish" may be common in SOME gentile churches, but it is a foreign idea to Judaism.

As I've stated many times, MJAA is the group that COINED the phase "Messianic Judaism." It is rightly theirs, and those they recognize, such as the UMJC. Others who adopt it who are not recognized by them are basically hijacking the title.
Are you positive the MJAA is the one that coined the phrase?

I'm sure the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council rulings are binding on the organizations it represents. But just as Reform rulings are not binding on Chabad, so too the MJRC rulings not binding on non-adherents.

I was a member of the MJAA once upon a time, but I dropped my membership when I came to realize that as an organization they were dismissing torah as being unimportant in the life of a messianic believer. If you want to attend one of their conferences it is cheaper to sign up and be a memeber. I wonder how many of their members really believe that the MJAA teaches, or were just looking for a conference disount?

[GerTzedek]

Are you positive the MJAA is the one that coined the phrase?

In 1915 a group named the Hebrew Christian Association of America (HCAA) was organised in the U.S. with an international alliance being promulgated in 1925. In 1973 a motion within the HCAA was made to change the name to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) and the name was officially changed in June of 1975.

I'm sure the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council rulings are binding on the organizations it represents. But just as Reform rulings are not binding on Chabad, so too the MJRC rulings not binding on non-adherents. I said no different. My point was, UMJC congregations have the Jewish mentality of community. It's not every person or every little congregation gets to decide on their own what MJ is.

I'm sorry you dropped out of your MJAA congregation. However, at least you realized your had a different set of beliefs, that your ideas of gentile believers being covenantally obligated is not shared by them.

It is also true that in many MJ congregations, largely because they ARE gentile, even the observance of Jews is dismally low. Now when JEWS are not observant, THAT is a problem. I've discussed that in other threads having to do with the overwhelming of MJ congregations with gentiles who simply like like a more Jewish worship service (as opposed to those gentiles who are called to conversion, have a special charism to Israel, or are married to Jews).

[mpossoff]

edit

[Wags]

In 1915 a group named the Hebrew Christian Association of America (HCAA) was organised in the U.S. with an international alliance being promulgated in 1925. In 1973 a motion within the HCAA was made to change the name to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) and the name was officially changed in June of 1975.

I said no different. My point was, UMJC congregations have the Jewish mentality of community. It's not every person or every little congregation gets to decide on their own what MJ is.

I'm sorry you dropped out of your MJAA congregation. However, at least you realized your had a different set of beliefs, that your ideas of gentile believers being covenantally obligated is not shared by them.

It is also true that in many MJ congregations, largely because they ARE gentile, even the observance of Jews is dismally low. Now when JEWS are not observant, THAT is a problem. I've discussed that in other threads having to do with the overwhelming of MJ congregations with gentiles who simply like like a more Jewish worship service (as opposed to those gentiles who are called to conversion, have a special charism to Israel, or are married to Jews).


I never said I belonged to an MJAA congregation - I said I was a member of the MJAA. Bit of difference there.

By your own admission you just came across Frist Fruts of Zion's website less than a month ago - and quickly jumped to conclusions about what they were teaching. So maybe while you are busy baselessly bashing them you missed this part of their belief statement:



We believe in the continuity of God’s covenants with the Jewish people, the physical people of Israel (Jeremiah 31:35–36 and parallel passages). Part of the fulfillment of these covenants is the physical return of the Jewish people to their Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 30)
We believe that all non-Jewish people who trust in Yeshua are grafted into Israel. While this does not make them Jewish, they are full and equal participants in the covenants of promise. (Ephesians 2:12; Romans 11:11–24; Jeremiah 31:33)
We believe that the Torah is a revelation of the righteousness of God and a description (along with the rest of Scripture of the lifestyle of the redeemed community. (Matthew 5:17–19; 2 Timothy 3:16–17)

[visionary]

http://www.ourrabbis.org/main/content/view/20/34/

5.3 Shechitah and Removal of Blood
5.3.1 The most basic Biblical dietary law, addressed not only to Israel but also to the nations of the world in Noah, involves avoiding the eating of blood (i.e., foods that are cooked in or with blood). Concern to guard this core dietary law led to the institution of Shechitah - the Jewish ritual slaughter of animals (which removes the vast majority of the blood) - and the special preparation of meat (which removes the remainder). Therefore, ideally it is recommended that only meat slaughtered and packaged under reliable kosher supervision be purchased.

[GerTzedek]

http://www.ourrabbis.org/main/content/view/20/34/

5.3 Shechitah and Removal of Blood
5.3.1 The most basic Biblical dietary law, addressed not only to Israel but also to the nations of the world in Noah, involves avoiding the eating of blood (i.e., foods that are cooked in or with blood). Concern to guard this core dietary law led to the institution of Shechitah - the Jewish ritual slaughter of animals (which removes the vast majority of the blood) - and the special preparation of meat (which removes the remainder). Therefore, ideally it is recommended that only meat slaughtered and packaged under reliable kosher supervision be purchased.
Note the rabbis argued gentile observance from the Noahide laws, not the Mosaic covenant.

[GerTzedek]

[FONT=Georgia]I never said I belonged to an MJAA congregation - I said I was a member of the MJAA. Bit of difference there.

Wags, are you resonding to a remark I made to visionary? Or did I do a stupid and think I was replying to visionary when it was your post I was replying to? It is visionary who stated she belonged to a MJAA congregation.

In your case, yes a difference, not a big difference. Normally it would mean you personally say you agree with MJAA's stands on the core issues. I'm confused why you were MJAA, since obviously you do NOT, if you are a One Law adherent. I think you made the right choice by dropping out. Although I would have much rather have seen you change your mind. :D :D :D

So maybe while you are busy baselessly bashing them you missed this part of their belief statement:...First Fruits of Zion teaches that gentiles should observe the mosaic covenant, yes or no?

[Wags]

First Fruits of Zion teaches that gentiles should observe the mosaic covenant, yes or no?


We believe that all non-Jewish people who trust in Yeshua are grafted into Israel. While this does not make them Jewish, they are full and equal participants in the covenants of promise. (Ephesians 2:12; Romans 11:11–24; Jeremiah 31:33)

Do you believe that you are grafted in - a joint heir? Do you believe that the adopted childrend are held to a different standard of right living than the natural born sons and daughters?

[GerTzedek]

Do you believe that you are grafted in - a joint heir? Do you believe that the adopted childrend are held to a different standard of right living than the natural born sons and daughters?
Wags, please go back and answer my question yes or no.

The whole "grafting" metaphor can be interpreted different ways. Both you and I say we believe ekklesia is grafted onto Israel. We mean different things. Now... please be so kind as to answer my question.

[Wags]

Wags, please go back and answer my question yes or no.

The whole "grafting" metaphor can be interpreted different ways. Both you and I say we believe ekklesia is grafted onto Israel. We mean different things. Now... please be so kind as to answer my question.\


I answered your question. But you are insisting on answers on your terms, when you yourself don't answer direct questions.... Oy!

[GerTzedek]

\


I answered your question. But you are insisting on answers on your terms, when you yourself don't answer direct questions.... Oy!
I asked for a yes or no. I'm waiting.

I'm also STILL waiting for you to answer my question regarding Act 15.

Personally, I feel no need to answer ANY of your questions, direct or indirect, when you have yet to answer two of mine.

[visionary]

Note the rabbis argued gentile observance from the Noahide laws, not the Mosaic covenant.They may love for an excuse to cut off my head, doesn't mean I have to believe they have the right.

[visionary]

Wags, are you resonding to a remark I made to visionary? Or did I do a stupid and think I was replying to visionary when it was your post I was replying to? It is visionary who stated she belonged to a MJAA congregation.

In your case, yes a difference, not a big difference. Normally it would mean you personally say you agree with MJAA's stands on the core issues. I'm confused why you were MJAA, since obviously you do NOT, if you are a One Law adherent. I think you made the right choice by dropping out. Although I would have much rather have seen you change your mind. :D :D :D

First Fruits of Zion teaches that gentiles should observe the mosaic covenant, yes or no?I belong to no organisation.

[GerTzedek]

I belong to no organisation.
vis: in the poll we took, you answered that your congregation was MJAA. I repeated above what you yourself reported.
http://foru.ms/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=16380

[GerTzedek]

They may love for an excuse to cut off my head, doesn't mean I have to believe they have the right.
LOL, this was so good, you had me laughing. I had to click the rep button for that one.

Of course not, especially as you are not UMJC.

However, since you quoted from the MJRC's Standard's of Observance to support your point, I was merely showing why it did not. :D

[visionary]

vis: in the poll we took, you answered that your congregation was MJAA. I repeated above what you yourself reported.
http://foru.ms/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=16380The congregation that i attend is, I do not belong though.

[GerTzedek]

The congregation that i attend is, I do not belong though.
Okay, I think I get it now. You are attending a congregation that is affiliated with MJAA, but you don't accept the all teachings of this congregation nor are you yourself a member of MJAA. Do I have it correct?

[visionary]

Okay, I think I get it now. You are attending a congregation that is affiliated with MJAA, but you don't accept the all teachings of this congregation nor are you yourself a member of MJAA. Do I have it correct?Yep.. you got it.:thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

I do hope you have actually taken the time to read the Tim Hegg's response to Rusnick paper.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf


I have read, thrice, Hegg's response. I tried hard to agree with it. I tried very hard to give it a chance. But, I cannot agree with it at all. Frankly, it's woeful.

He rambles on a lot (which fools some into thinking he knows a lot about this, but it doesn't fool me) but never really adresses the key points behind the original objections.

Hegg tends to avoid key points and tries to build his argument from finer points, many of them actually errors anyway. This approach of course violates the rules of logic and common sense- as well as the scriptural mandate to use the analogy of The Faith.

I wrote to Hegg about this and his hilarious (because it was so misguided and misguiding) attempt to discredit the historic Christian Church (and thus Christianity, as the Church is the Body of Christ- attack the Church, attack Jesus) in Messiah Magazine in a series of poorly researched and double-think debated articles as well. No response.

I implore all serious readers who really want to know the truth to think twice about his article.

He could be right about other things, but on this issue, he is clearly, utterly, and completely wrong.

[ContraMundum]

Grafted in- doesn't mean imitiate, replace, mimic, revert to or anything like that. It doesn't mean becoming exactly like Isreal (otherwise you would need to be circumcised), but it means sharing in Israel's blessings, promises and purpose.

Ingrafting is about a participation in Israel's holiness, not her traditions and ethnicity. (Rom. 11:16)

Final word: Timothy (of a Jewish mother, therefore halachically Jewish) was circumcised by Paul- the Galatians were scolded by accepting it.

My opinion (and I accept it as my opinion and not everyone's- not even my peers) is that Jews must be Jewish and the Gentiles are free to be as they wish- as long as it is under the Law of Christ (which is hard enough).

[visionary]

I have read, thrice, Hegg's response. I tried hard to agree with it. I tried very hard to give it a chance. But, I cannot agree with it at all. Frankly, it's woeful.

He rambles on a lot (which fools some into thinking he knows a lot about this, but it doesn't fool me) but never really adresses the key points behind the original objections.

Hegg tends to avoid key points and tries to build his argument from finer points, many of them actually errors anyway. This approach of course violates the rules of logic and common sense- as well as the scriptural mandate to use the analogy of The Faith.

I wrote to Hegg about this and his hilarious (because it was so misguided and misguiding) attempt to discredit the historic Christian Church (and thus Christianity, as the Church is the Body of Christ- attack the Church, attack Jesus) in Messiah Magazine in a series of poorly researched and double-think debated articles as well. No response.

I implore all serious readers who really want to know the truth to think twice about his article.

He could be right about other things, but on this issue, he is clearly, utterly, and completely wrong.Do you believe that the persecuting church is the historic church?

[ContraMundum]

Do you believe that the persecuting church is the historic church?

The "Persecuting Church", what's that? Where do they meet? Never heard of them.

If you think I believe that the persecution of any individual by those who call themselves Christians is correct, then you are mistaken.

Right now, the only persecution I get from Christians is from Messianics. Does that make their movement the false church of Babylon?

[mpossoff]

Grafted in- doesn't mean imitiate, replace, mimic, revert to or anything like that. It doesn't mean becoming exactly like Isreal (otherwise you would need to be circumcised), but it means sharing in Israel's blessings, promises and purpose.

Ingrafting is about a participation in Israel's holiness, not her traditions and ethnicity. (Rom. 11:16)

Final word: Timothy (of a Jewish mother, therefore halachically Jewish) was circumcised by Paul- the Galatians were scolded by accepting it.

My opinion (and I accept it as my opinion and not everyone's- not even my peers) is that Jews must be Jewish and the Gentiles are free to be as they wish- as long as it is under the Law of Christ (which is hard enough).

The true mystery and miracle is that those who were born Gentiles and who were without hope or God in the world, have been raised up and placed as part of the redeemed people of God. This is why Paul admonishes the gentiles to remember where they came from; so that they would not boast in themselves but in Him. What He has done was (and is), in man's eyes, impossible. But with God, all things are possible.

Now the question is if gentiles become part of the redeemed people of God... do gentiles as part of the redeemed community follow and keep Torah?

Contra is this a Jewish thing?

Or is it about being part of the children of God?

I think when you bring ethnicity into the picture it denegrates.

Is it about ethinicity?

In the Kingdom ALL will keep the Torah. Why not now? IF ALL will keep Torah why not now?


Marc

[ContraMundum]

Marc my friend, I have no idea how to answer you. I don't think we speak the same theological language, so I have no idea how to communicate to you what I understand, without a bunch of people getting the wrong idea and calling me names again.

Let me just repeat that the Jerusalem Council halachically distinguished between Gentiles and Jews, and so did Paul - so I keep in step with them. I don't have the authority to add to their words or declare their rulings obsolete.

[visionary]

The "Persecuting Church", what's that? Where do they meet? Never heard of them.

If you think I believe that the persecution of any individual by those who call themselves Christians is correct, then you are mistaken.

Right now, the only persecution I get from Christians is from Messianics. Does that make their movement the false church of Babylon?I have read your posts in the anglican area, and you believe you are picked on there too. So does that make them the false church of Babylon too?

[mpossoff]

Marc my friend, I have no idea how to answer you. I don't think we speak the same theological language, so I have no idea how to communicate to you what I understand, without a bunch of people getting the wrong idea and calling me names again.

Let me just repeat that the Jerusalem Council halachically distinguished between Gentiles and Jews, and so did Paul - so I keep in step with them. I don't have the authority to add to their words or declare their rulings obsolete.

Yeah there are two schools of thought.

One school is that Acts 15 is a starting point.

The other school is that Acts 15 is the finish and distinguishes the obligation of Torah between Jews and Gentiles.

We also have to remember the 1st century halacha. Was it right or wrong?

Was the man made law pertaining to gentile inclusion in line with Torah?

Yes circumcision is a Torah command.

In Torah did a gentile have to circ first to be considered part of the redeemed people of God?

Is circ Biblically a change of ethincity?

Or is it a sign that one is part of the redeemed people of God?

Is Torah Jewish?

Or is Torah how God says His redeemed people are to live and behave as covenant people? Whether you are a physical decendent of Jacob or not?

Did Caleb types in the Torah get circ first to be included in the covenant community? Did they have to go through a ritual conversion before entering in?

Is circumcision(a sign of the covenant community) a result of obeying Torah as part of the redeemed people of God?

Personally I was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law of Moses. I was birthed into the covenant so to speak.

Marc

[ContraMundum]

I have read your posts in the anglican area, and you believe you are picked on there too. So does that make them the false church of Babylon too?


Exactly.

They aren't the false church of Babylon because some members choose to persecute. Nor are the MJs, nor are the Catholics, nor are the Orthodox, or anyone for that matter.

The Church has historically persecuted all kinds of people, but they have also blessed Billions and repented of their sins. If a sinner repents to me, I forgive them. You should do the same with the Church.

So, there is no such thing as "The Persecuting Church", is there?

The Church is the Body of Christ. You can't persecute the Church without persecuting Christ. This is the lesson Paul had to learn on the road to Damascus. How Christians can spend endless hours denigrating the Church throughout history is beyond my comprehension. It's usually because they are victims of biased teaching in my experience- so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

[mpossoff]

The reason circumcision was such a controversial issue in the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) is that the non-Jews coming to faith were not circumcised as infants as the Scriptures prescribe. Had they been circumcised as infants, then the controversy would not have arisen.

Marc

[ContraMundum]

All good questions you raised marc.

Yeah there are two schools of thought.

One school is that Acts 15 is a starting point.

The other school is that Acts 15 is the finish and distinguishes the obligation of Torah between Jews and Gentiles.

Let me tell you my concern over this, and why I don't buy the "starting point" argument, if I can, without others calling me names.

If Acts 15 is only the starting point, who decides where and how it goes and who decides when it has gone far enough?

It would take another Council or more, logically.

The Church has held Councils since, and they have maintained that decision of the First Council continuously and faithfully.

Who has the authority to over-rule the first Council and declare that now is the time to give Gentiles all the same burdens as the Jews? This is the problem. We either agree with and maintain their decision or overule it- but who has the authority to overule the Apostles of Jesus?

The second point is whether or not we consider the Law of Christ as Torah or not. If we do, then all of those who keep the Law of Christ are keeping Torah as taught by Him, are they not?

The alternative is that the Law of Christ is not Torah at all but rather disagrees with it and abolishes it. This, to me, is unthinkable, and if it were proven that it was true I'd repent of being a follower of Jesus right now.

[ContraMundum]

The reason circumcision was such a controversial issue in the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) is that the non-Jews coming to faith were not circumcised as infants as the Scriptures prescribe. Had they been circumcised as infants, then the controversy would not have arisen.

Marc



Adult circumcision also occurs when infant circumcision has been neglected.

[visionary]

All good questions you raised marc.



Let me tell you my concern over this, and why I don't buy the "starting point" argument, if I can, without others calling me names.

If Acts 15 is only the starting point, who decides where and how it goes and who decides when it has gone far enough?

It would take another Council or more, logically.

The Church has held Councils since, and they have maintained that decision of the First Council continuously and faithfully.

Who has the authority to over-rule the first Council and declare that now is the time to give Gentiles all the same burdens as the Jews? This is the problem. We either agree with and maintain their decision or overule it- but who has the authority to overule the Apostles of Jesus?

The second point is whether or not we consider the Law of Christ as Torah or not. If we do, then all of those who keep the Law of Christ are keeping Torah as taught by Him, are they not?

The alternative is that the Law of Christ is not Torah at all but rather disagrees with it and abolishes it. This, to me, is unthinkable, and if it were proven that it was true I'd repent of being a follower of Jesus right now."as" should be "is"

[mpossoff]

"as" should be "is"

When we say the Law of Christ is not the same as the Law of God I think that's dangerous theology.

It was Christ who spoke the Words from Mount Sinai. It was Christ that showed Moses His hind parts.

It was Messiah who said Let there be light and there was light

Marc

[visionary]

When we say the Law of Christ is not the same as the Law of God I think that's dangerous theology.

It was Christ who spoke the Words from Mount Sinai. It was Christ that showed Moses His hind parts.

It was Messiah who said Let there be light and there was light

Marc
That's it exactly... That is why the wording of Contra's needed tweeking. The second point is whether or not we consider the Law of Christ as Torah or not. If we do, then all of those who keep the Law of Christ are keeping Torah as taught by Him, are they not?

[Steve Petersen]

Contra,

If people are calling you names, shame on them. I find your posts interesting and would really enjoy a calm, rational conversation about this stuff.

[visionary]

I have highlighted the parts I really believe ..Yeah there are two schools of thought.

One school is that Acts 15 is a starting point.
The other school is that Acts 15 is the finish and distinguishes the obligation of Torah between Jews and Gentiles.

We also have to remember the 1st century halacha. Was it right or wrong?

Was the man made law pertaining to gentile inclusion in line with Torah?

Yes circumcision is a Torah command.

In Torah did a gentile have to circ first to be considered part of the redeemed people of God?

Is circ Biblically a change of ethincity?

Or is it a sign that one is part of the redeemed people of God?

Is Torah Jewish?

Or is Torah how God says His redeemed people are to live and behave as covenant people? Whether you are a physical decendent of Jacob or not?

Did Caleb types in the Torah get circ first to be included in the covenant community? Did they have to go through a ritual conversion before entering in?

Is circumcision(a sign of the covenant community) a result of obeying Torah as part of the redeemed people of God?

Personally I was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law of Moses. I was birthed into the covenant so to speak.

Marc:thumbsup:

[visionary]

Contra,

If people are calling you names, shame on them. I find your posts interesting and would really enjoy a calm, rational conversation about this stuff.Where??:scratch:

[mpossoff]

I have highlighted the parts I really believe ..:thumbsup:

What is the faith of the Torah?

What was Israel to do with the oracles of God?

Keep them for themselves?

Teach the other nations? To be a light to the nations.

To be a light to the nations? What does that mean? If Israel was to be the kingdom of priests and were given the oracles of God what were they to teach the nations?

What did the nation Nineveh do? They repented when Jonah preached to them? They turned around and worshipped the God of Israel.

Marc

[visionary]

What is the faith of the Torah?

What was Israel to do with the oracles of God?

Keep them for themselves?

Teach the other nations? To be a light to the nations.

To be a light to the nations? What does that mean? If Israel was to be the kingdom of priests and were given the oracles of God what were they to teach the nations?

What did the nation Nineveh do? They repented when Jonah preached to them? They turned around and worshipped the God of Israel.

MarcAmen... I am with you on this.

Noahides are of the opinion, it is to be kept to themselves and off with the gentile head, if you think otherwise.

[Wags]

Still promoting a double standard Contra? It's okay for you to riddicule whom and whatever you please, but it isn't okay for people to post an opposing viewpoint or to say that they find you to be a less than credible source.

[ContraMundum]

Righteous Gentiles.

Did the Ninevites get circumcised? Did they don Tefillin and Tzitzis? Did they keep Kashrus? Did they switch to the Jewish calendar? Nope.

Isreal is a light to the World. Agreed. The prophet Jonah was sent to bring light to Nineveh, but did he take the entire 613 mitzvot to them? (If you think he came to this planet before Moses, then the matter is already answered).

I can't help it if I stick to the Jewish understanding, folks.

[ContraMundum]

Still taking personal jabs at me wags?

I have not denigrated anyone on this thread, and completely accept the point of view of marc and visionary as a valid opinion.

I'd like the opportunity to be recieved likewise.

Got anything constructive to add to this thread or is it just about me? I'd like to speak freely and not be silenced (again). How come I'm expected to be generous with my point of view and you're not?

[ContraMundum]

Where??:scratch:

Post #45...it's already started.

Again.

[Talmidah]

Contra,

If people are calling you names, shame on them. I find your posts interesting and would really enjoy a calm, rational conversation about this stuff.

:thumbsup:

[Talmidah]

Noahides are of the opinion, it is to be kept to themselves and off with the gentile head, if you think otherwise.

Hi visionary :wave:,

I'm kind of confused by this post. What do you mean by "Noahides are of the opinion, it is to be kept to themselves and off with the gentile head"? Can you clarify what you mean?

Thanks! :)

[Wags]

Still taking personal jabs at me wags?

I have not denigrated anyone on this thread, and completely accept the point of view of marc and visionary as a valid opinion.

I'd like the opportunity to be recieved likewise.

Got anything constructive to add to this thread or is it just about me? I'd like to speak freely and not be silenced (again). How come I'm expected to be generous with my point of view and you're not?
You took a pretty personal jab at Tim Hegg - again. You could have said you disagreed with his point of view without the name calling.

[ContraMundum]

You took a pretty personal jab at Tim Hegg - again. You could have said you disagreed with his point of view without the name calling.

"Personal" attack on Hegg?

I beg to differ, wags. I never called Hegg anything other than wrong about one thing. That's not a personal attack on him, it's a disagreement with one teaching of someone who has set up a public ministry and thus takes authority as a teacher. His teachings are fair game, as are mine, yours or anyone's.

I think he's no doubt a sincere, good man. I even said that he may be right about a lot of things, but he is wrong about this. I can't support his position on this issue, and don't think anyone should. But, if they do- they can still be in God's grace.

Why is that such a bad thing? Am I to agree with everything Hegg says? Am I not entitled to tell people that there is an alternative, mainstream Messianic doctrine to his?

I know he's your teacher. I'm sorry about that. You've said many uncharitable things about doctrines and churches other than your own- I just want equality.

[visionary]

II Kings 17:24 “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel, and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.” of which Ninivah is one.

About the middle of the nineteenth century the ancient city of Nineveh was found by the British archeologist Henry Layard. Nineveh (the Calah of Genesis), was founded by Nimrod. Discovering the ruins of this ancient city was in itself significant, but more important was the fact that in the palace of Ashurbanipal which was discovered within the city was the famous library belonging to that monarch. This library was the most famous in the whole of the ancient Orient. From this library 22,000 cuneiform tablets were recovered, and later found their way into the British Museum.

It was about the same time that Sargon’s castle was discovered, and in its ruins also were found many valuable records pertaining to Assyria’s conquest of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. The tablets in the ancient library at Nineveh, together with those found in Sargon’s castle, excavated by M. Botta, have greatly assisted archeologists, and indeed marked the birth of a new science—Assyriology. Nineveh was the ancient capital of Assyria
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm
.

[visionary]

The penalty for violating any of these Noahide Laws is spelled out on page 1192 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, "... violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation."

In the elaboration of these seven Noachian laws, and in assigning punishments for their transgression, the Rabbis are sometimes more lenient and sometimes more rigorous with Noachidæ than with Israelites. With but a few exceptions, the punishment meted out to a Noachid for the transgression of any of the seven laws is decapitation, the least painful of the four modes of execution of criminals http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=113&letter=L&search=Noahide%20Laws

[Wags]

"Personal" attack on Hegg?

I beg to differ, wags. I never called Hegg anything other than wrong about one thing. That's not a personal attack on him, it's a disagreement with one teaching of someone who has set up a public ministry and thus takes authority as a teacher. His teachings are fair game, as are mine, yours or anyone's.

I think he's no doubt a sincere, good man. I even said that he may be right about a lot of things, but he is wrong about this. I can't support his position on this issue, and don't think anyone should. But, if they do- they can still be in God's grace.

Why is that such a bad thing? Am I to agree with everything Hegg says? Am I not entitled to tell people that there is an alternative, mainstream Messianic doctrine to his?

I know he's your teacher. I'm sorry about that. You've said many uncharitable things about doctrines and churches other than your own- I just want equality.


Would it be equality to say that you ramble on a lot and your prsentation is "woeful". Should I point out that your arguements are "hilarious, and based on errors and violate the rules of logic"? Should I say that your writings attack Jesus? Should I implore all serious readers to stay away from the logic of an anglican priest?

Of course if I were to say that about you without presenting any proof you would vigoursly protest that you were being unfaily treated, probably even say you were being perscuted.

But it would be equal treatment, wouldn't it?


I have read, thrice, Hegg's response. I tried hard to agree with it. I tried very hard to give it a chance. But, I cannot agree with it at all. Frankly, it's woeful.

He rambles on a lot (which fools some into thinking he knows a lot about this, but it doesn't fool me) but never really adresses the key points behind the original objections.

Hegg tends to avoid key points and tries to build his argument from finer points, many of them actually errors anyway. This approach of course violates the rules of logic and common sense- as well as the scriptural mandate to use the analogy of The Faith.

I wrote to Hegg about this and his hilarious (because it was so misguided and misguiding) attempt to discredit the historic Christian Church (and thus Christianity, as the Church is the Body of Christ- attack the Church, attack Jesus) in Messiah Magazine in a series of poorly researched and double-think debated articles as well. No response.

I implore all serious readers who really want to know the truth to think twice about his article.

He could be right about other things, but on this issue, he is clearly, utterly, and completely wrong.

[Steve Petersen]

I enjoy Hegg and FFOZ materials. Theirs is a perspective that is a minority within whatever you call this movement. They do a good job connecting the NT with the Jewish world of its day.

[ContraMundum]

Would it be equality to say that you ramble on a lot and your prsentation is "woeful". Should I point out that your arguements are "hilarious, and based on errors and violate the rules of logic"? Should I say that your writings attack Jesus? Should I implore all serious readers to stay away from the logic of an anglican priest?

Of course if I were to say that about you without presenting any proof you would vigoursly protest that you were being unfaily treated, probably even say you were being perscuted.

But it would be equal treatment, wouldn't it?



Actually, it wouldn't bother me at all. I'm not here to defend my ego. Honestly. You've said worse. :)

[ContraMundum]

I enjoy Hegg and FFOZ materials. Theirs is a perspective that is a minority within whatever you call this movement. They do a good job connecting the NT with the Jewish world of its day.
I'd agree with that.