Jewish-Christian instead of Church?

rlvaughn --

Sorry -- I missed your post.

We do not practice the Christian mode of
communion; rather, we have Pesach or Passover,
which includes the fourth cup and the bread,
which our Lord set aside as special to Himself.
As is traditional, this wine or grape juice is often
mixed with warm water, making it warm. (I love
the analogy!) The bread is the afikomen which
had, as traditionally practiced, been hidden in a
napkin. The bread is thin, striped, and pocked
with holes, as is traditional.

This is very unlike Christian tradition, which often
uses a pristine cookie-like wafer and a tiny sip
of wine or juice from a plastic cup. I do not say
that in derision, merely as a fact. It is merely that
traditional seders are far more filled with
wonderful analogies and vivid tactical images of
our Lord than are traditional Christian
communions. Tomorrow, Pesach begins at
sundown, and we will be observing it at a friend's
home. The day (tomorrow evening through the
next evening) is a Sabbath, and I look forward to
it very much.

You asked, I believe, if we make a distinction
between the traditions and our Lord's and the
apostles' commands. If you intend the biblical
traditions, not the added traditions, No. They are
all from one undivided book, from one Word.
Had we been the ones to cannonize the Scriptures,
there would have been no division, making an
"Old"' and a "New"' testament; it is all one book,
and "Old"' and "New Testamnt" are misnomers.

Regarding baptism, our baptism varies from
traditional baptisms, which are based loosely
upon Scripture and more profoundly upon
Christian tradition. Aa quick read through the
Bible will show that very little done in most
baptismal ceremonies is biblical.

 

Char --

Just so that you will know, we do not feel
"compelled" to observe Passover; we do it
because we love the Lord and because it was
commanded. It is all about our Lord.

 

They may or may not be "extreme Judaizers".
What BTW is "extreme"?
If they attach the works of the Law to salvation, then yes, they are legalists but there are also (probably more) gentiles which are legalists after this definition. But I don't think (from Abiyah's threads) they are legalists in that sense.
For instance they keep the Sabbath. But I know that Abiyah does not give any significance to the Sabbath as to her salvation or the maintenance thereof because she has said so elsewhere on the BB.
Judging by the avalanche of questions directed towards Abiyah, it seems obvious that there needs to be some kind of dialogue with this/these group(s) to figure out how to get everyone to realize that the middle wall of partition has been broken down.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

Thank you, Hank.

One warning, though: some of the Messianic
groups are, indeed, elitists, and gentiles are not
welcome among them. Some allow Gentiles to be
members but only a small percentage of their
congregations, by their own laws, may be Gentile.
Those of us who are not like this have found
ourselves in a position of needing to separate
from them, in congregating and in our bylaws, in
order to maintain a distinction from them. This is
very uncomfortable. The fact is that we cannot be
a part of a group which is prejudiced, whether
Jewish or Christian.

 

I certainly have or at least intend no prejudice toward Jewish Christians, and do not begrudge them maintenance of their customs any more than any other group of people. But I must say, that with my present understanding that the Old Testament ceremony has been "done away," I believe it should not be the basis of rituals or observances in the gatherings of believers. Much non-biblical Christian tradition that has grown up over the past 2000 years (rather than being "done away," it was never established). For example, IMO, believers as individuals may choose to observe or not observe holidays such as Christmas or Easter. But they are not prescribed upon the New Testament church as ritual or observance. I say this not to start a debate, but rather to explain how I approach the subject.

 

rlvaughn --

I understand that most Christians believe that the
holy days have been "done away"; however, is it
a common belief among Christians that to
practice them, as closely as one may without the
Temple, is a sin? This is something I don't know
and have wondered about. You did say that you
"believe it should not be the basis of rituals or
observances in the gatherings of believers." This
leads me to believe that you see our observance
of Pesach (or Passover), for example, to be a sin.

You said that you see the observance of such
days as Christmas and Easter to be optional,
with no sin attached to choosing to observe or not
observe. To me, this is interesting, because both
have paganism at their roots. I, too, am merely
stating facts. I also do not understand. 8o)

[ April 16, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Abiyah, I did not make myself clear. I believe that Christmas, Easter, Lent and no more New Testament commands and observances than Passover. I am not sure if you all observe passover "at church" or if you observe it as a "family tradition" or just what you are doing. I think you did say that it is observed in homes, but I guess what I'm asking is this something that you do as part of your culture, or is it a required part of the belief system in your group? In the case of Christmas, Easter, etc., many Baptists bring these observances into the church services and make them an integral part at those times of the year. I would oppose that just as much as I would oppose doing so with Passover, the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, etc. None of these, whether Passover or Christmas, are New Testament commands or observances. As far as the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, you are correct. Yet a home can choose to observe either as just a holiday, without pagan trappings. July the 4th might be a good example. It is a holiday of no religious origin or nature, but is rather national. It is a part of the history and tradition of Americans. A Christian, IMO, is at liberty to choose to celebrate it or not. But to make it a part of church exercises would, again IMO, be incorrect. Would observing Christmas or Passover be a sin? If we are talking about as a religious observance, I guess that technically I would have to say that attempting to observe them as a New Testament command would be - not a violation of God's moral law, but a violation of God's positive institution for His churches. For example, I would believe it to be a sin in the same sense that I would think so of sprinkling an infant and calling it baptism. Hope this helps clear up a little of what I meant. If not, ask more and I'll try to explain.

 

8o) Perhaps I am just thick-headed! 8o)

Although we observe Passover in our homes, it is
very much a part of our beliefs; it does, after all,
include the cup and bread which our Lord told us
to continue observing. He said that when we
continue to do it, we should do it in remembrance
of Him.

On the night following, we have a public seder,
which is held inside the synagogue. Many of
those from our synagogue come, and we allow
Christian believers to come, too. It is a gourmet
meal by a Jewish gourmet chef (who is also a
believer), so all must pay to attend. It is $15 for
adults and $10 for children, and I enjoy it every
Pesach.

We also celebrate the other holy days at the
synagogue, including Hanukkah (which our
Lord celebrated, attending the Temple for that
time) and Purim, even though thes are not
commanded holy days.

As far as whether or not these are required, they
are no more required than singing or teaching
during a service or attending services. Doing
them will not save one; we do them because we
love the Lord and they wee given as teachin tools
for His people.

8o) This is where we differ. The Bible states
clearly that an unholy thing cannot be made holy,
and since these holidays have pagan roots, they
cannot, in my opinion, be cleaned up and given
new names to make them holy.

Well, I cannot imagine our God calling a day He
commanded to be set aside a violation for us to set
aside. He does not change. Chrismas and
sprinkling babies were never His commands;
Pesach is. Even our Lord said that when we do
Pesach, we are to think of Him.

 

Abiyah,
How does your baptism differ to other Baptist churches?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I am not sure that I even understand exactly what you all are doing. I haven't had time to look up some of the terms you are using, and some are not familiar to me. My understanding though is that the Lord told us to continue observing the bread and cup. Anything more would be presumptuous, IMO. What we are taught and commanded to do in remembrance of Him does not include continuing all of the details of Passover.

When I use the term "required," I do not mean required for salvation, but required for obedience. IOW, would you say that only Jewish Christians should observe these holy days, or should all Christians? It seems that something that is required in order to be obedient to God would be incumbent on all Christians, not just Jewish ones.

I don't want to defend Christmas and Easter. I accept these holidays as a part of our culture; I do not accept them as religious observances. But I also think that a consistent approach to leaving off anything of pagan historical origin will be an untenable approach for everyone in the long run. Are we required to know the origin of everything and then ditch it if it has anything pagan? What might we be doing that has a pagan historical origin and not even know it? A pagan origin would be true of the English names of the days of the week. Nevertheless, most of us continue to use them. Even the apostle Paul said that a piece of meat offered to an idol was ultimately just a piece of meat, if eaten with thanksgiving.

If by Pesach you only meant the Lord's supper, then I would agree it is commanded. If you mean the whole Passover, I disagree as far as the church is concerned. The entire festive system of the Old Testament was never commanded to any people other than the nation of Israel. I assume, though I do not know for certain, that the practice of your group probably excludes the animal sacrifices of the old system. If God not changing is the criteria of keeping the festive system of the law, then it would seem incumbent to try to keep it as given. Perhaps if you have posted on some other threads concerning the faith and practice of your group, it would be helpful for me in understanding your viewpoint (and would save you having to repost similar material). Thanks.

 

As a Gentile, I owe the Jews a great debt and we Gentiles should never disparage them. The blindness of the Jewish people is Biblically taught as being only temporary and partial. And you know what? It has given us Gentiles the opportunity to become a part of God's plan of salvation. In due course, our own faith will lead a great turning to God among the Jews. However...the words of Christ are clear concerning his transformation of the Passover into something greater and more meaningful to both Jew AND Gentile: "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." While, indeed, Jesus participated in the traditional Passover meal, he was in fact instituting the Lord's Supper to symbolize the fact that His very blood is now the seal of the covenant between God and His people. Paul took the Lord's Supper so seriously that he warned Christians to examine their lives with utmost care before taking it, and even blamed physical ailments which had afflicted the church at Corinth on those who had not heeded this practice. (And, as mentioned previously, Paul was appointed by Christ himself as an apostle, so his words carry that authority.) Ultimately, the practices we observe in worship are not as important as the attitude of our heart, but celebrating the Passover is not a substitute for the Lord's Supper. The new covenant is "suddenly upon you." Confessing that Jesus is Lord and believing in His resurrection produce saving faith, nothing else. As Christians, Jew or Gentile, we needn't wait for the calendar to turn to a specific day or season, but should use every day we're given to praise God for the Good News about Christ, which is "the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes."

 

Well, my answer can get me (and has gotten me)
into a whole new can of worms. 8o)

As is both historical and traditional, long before
John's baptism, people baptized for many
reasons, although the word baptism was, of
course, not used, because they were Jews. When
a woman gave birth, she was baptized, as well as
after menses, and previous to marriage. Men were
also baptized previous to the marriage ceremony
and they were baptized into fatherhood. All were
baptized if their name was changed, upon
acceptance of a newly understood doctrine of the
faith, before entering the Temple, upon a profound
healing, etc.

When John was baptizing, he was in the place
where people passed on their way from places
which were mainly pagan into Jerusalem, so they
would stop there and baptize themselves before
entering the city. He, however, was teling them
they needed to be baptized in a new way. This is
why he was drawing a crowd -- people were
surprised at his teaching to not only be baptized
for entering the city but to be baptized for
repentance -- and to expect the Messiah
immediately.

After Messiah came, He informed the people that
they needed to be baptized in the name of the
Father (which they had already been doing), and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit -- all three
instead of one -- because to neglect any one of
these would be denial of Him. They could, then,
be baptized in all three in one baptism at the time
of repentance.

There was nothing wrong with John's bapism;
it is just that there was more understanding, by
that time, to be baptized into. John's baptism of
repentance and acceptance of the coming
Messiah was no longer enough.

However, as has always been, there continue to
be other baptisms. Each one is a layer upon the
previous baptism, not a detractor of the previous
baptism, unless the candidate intends it that way.

For example, I was baptized into my old church
upon receiving the Lord (in the name of the Father,
the Son, an the Holy Spirit). When I became a
member of my synagogue, they had no problem
accepting my baptism there, but I chose to be
baptized again.

Other differences are that we baptize only in
"living water" -- water that is continuously
running in and running out -- such as a river, a
lake with an inlet and outlet, a mikveh, etc. We
always have a witness, to make sure that we go
completely under, but we baptize ourselves,
saying the words ourselves, as has been done for
millennia.

I hope I have completely answered your question.

 

rlvaughn --

I will try to answer your all your statements and
questions, but I have a crummy Internet system
which keeps me from copying just parts of a post
to answer it. If I want to delete parts of a post, I
must erase every individual letter that I do not need
to use. Royal pain in the neck! I will have to do it
by memory.

I did write down the following quote, though:

I partially disagree with this statement. 8o) The
Temple does not exist now, so animal sacrifices
certainly are not done. Luke, for example, wrote
about the disciples preparing the Passover.

Our Lord, however, participated in that Passover,
hosting it. When it came to that cup -- the third --
He specifically told them to continue to drink that
cup in remembrance of Him. How can one drink
the third cup in remembrance unless the first and
second cups had been drunk? (By the way, when
I, in an earlier post, mentioned the fourth cup as
this one, I misspoke. It was the third.)

The next cup in the seder is known among Jews
(both believers and non-believers) the marriage
cup. Our Lord told the disciples to go ahead and
drink this cup but that He would not drink it until
the kingdom of God comes. In other words, they
completed the seder. If they were not to continue
with the whole seder, He would have ended it
there. They had, after all, eaten the whole supper
by that time; they would certainly not have left
hungry. 8o)

Furthermore, if you plan to be at that supper He
will host for us 8o) , read Luke 22:15 and16. You
are going to a seder! 8o)

You asked if all should observe Passover. 8o)
In my opinion, yes. What most do not understand
is that the feasts are not a burden. They are not
bondage. The fact is that they are teaching tools
which were set up for us to teach up how to live
here and how to prepare for the millenium.

The first one is Passover, which teaches savation.
It teaches that we cannot be saved without the
Blood. It shows His wounded body, how He was
wrapped in a cloth and hidden away, that we must
be partakers with Him, that there is joy to look
forward to in eternity. It is a yearly reminder of
these things, placed in a partially festive, partially
very serious setting. The final one in the year is all
about living with Him in a perfect world where He
is absolute Father, Provider, and All-righteous
Judge.

Regarding your query about the origins of things
being pagan, the days of the week, Paul, and
meat, certainly, I do believe that if one knows of
the pagan origins of something, they should pay
heed to that. Paul said of meat, however, to eat
and ask nothing. In other words, what you don't
know, in this particular case, will not hurt you,
because their gods are no gods at all. However,
if we have previous knowledge that the meat
was an offering to idols, we are not to eat.

Finally, you said that the entire festive system
"was never commanded to any people other than
the nation of Israel." I must differ wih you. All
who were in Israel -- Jew, Greek, Egyptian,
whomever -- were to participate. It was
commanded in the Bible. Also, if a person was
not in Israel at the time of some of the festivals,
they were to observe them where they were --
they and their whole household, including those
not of the faith. (Some of the festivals required
a visit to the Temple, so they had to be observed
there.)

When the were in Egypt at the time of the first
Passover, there wee some Egyptians who
participated in applying the blood to their homes,
and becaues of this, the death angel passed them
by. Surely their participation in this "Jewish ritual"
saved their lives.

I hope I have answered everything.

I did not intend to use words not easily defined in
my previous posts. If you choose to, you may
ask me what I intended.

 

Char --

I agree with most of your statements, but some
confuse me.

You said

If I indicated that one must wait until a certain day
to give thanks and praise to our God for our Lord,
I certainly did not intend that.

You said

I never said anything about substitutes for the
"Lord's Supper." Passover includes the "Lord's
Supper." 8o)

You mentioned the new covenant. You mentioned
that our Lord said that the cup is the new covenant.
Do you care to define new covenant further, using
biblical sources? What is the old? What is the
difference? When does the new covenant come
into action? Who all enjoyed/enjoy the provisions of
the new covenant? Who has been under the old
covenant?

 

The answers to your questions are handled in the Pauline epistles to a degree that, should I even begin to respond, would cause me to simply quote verse after verse. Romans chapter 2 is a good place to begin, as is 1 Corinthians chapter 10. If you would be interested in an easy reading version, read the epistles in the New Living Translation, which will make them go much faster and more like real letters. If you would be interested in in-depth study of these Scriptures, I would strongly suggest the New King James Version for a reliable, authoritative and highly literal rendition of these from the original Greek texts. Happy reading!

 

Char --

8o)

No, I have read these in many versions. It is just
that most Christians I have conversed with have
not the vaguest idea what they are.

 

Thank you, Abiyah...It answers my question.

I am quite familiar with the ceremonial "cleansings", avoiding the use of the word "baptism" to separate the command to be baptized as a step of obedience and witness to one's conversion experience. I guess that was my question.

In England, when I was a lad, there were many Orthodox Jews who lived in our area of East London. On their way to synagogue they were not to allow a gentile to cross in front of them. If this happened, they were supposed to return home and "baptize" themselves before proceeding to the synagogue. I suppose this is a similar thing to the ceremonial cleasnings......or one of the many "baptisms". I have since learned that this was a peculiarity of those particular Jews in our area and it was not a universal practice.

I have no objection to your ways and means. If it draws you closer to the Lord Jesus, and I suspect it does, the lord bless you and your group.

One day we will all know in full, won't we?

Cheers,

Jim

 

8o) Thank you, Jim. Yes, we will know. I was
thinking yesterday about that, and I wondered how
many things I am presently sure about that I will be
surprised to learn were not right / true. How many
things I hold dear will I learn are nothing to our
Lord? How many things do I think I understand
completely that I, in reality, have not the vaguest
idea about myself?

 

Thanks for taking the time to give your explanations. I'm going out of town for the weekend and won't be able to continue the conversation for three days, but will try to reply briefly. I would be very curious how you all understand the book of Hebrews - talking about the first covenant and the second one, and the new being so much better and established on better promises, the first being a shadow, etc., etc. I have no doubt that you do have an understanding; I just can't conceive of how from my perspective.

Here I would differ slightly. The "knowing" or "not knowing" does not affect whether it is right or wrong (I Cor. 8:4-8); it affects one's conscience (I Cor. 8:7). If eating that meat were sinful, Paul's argument would not be true. He is saying that we should give up something that we have a right to do if such a thing is offensive to our brothers & sisters in Christ. If it were sinful just because it had been offered to an idol, it would not be a question of giving up a right, it would be something we must give up. BTW, I think Christmas, Easter, Lent, et al. could very well fall into this category - they are things not commanded, they are not something we have to do, and they are things that are offensive to some of our brothers & sisters in Christ. (I will add that I don't believe in these as anything more than a part of our culture, but I personally don't find them "offensive." I think we'd be better off if we left them off.)

 

If an O.T. feast is fulfilled in Christ and we as Christians continue to practice it, doesn't that imply that Christ didn't completely fulfill it? Should we continue to observe "shadows" when spiritual realities are now revealed in the New Covenant?

I honestly don't see how Messianic Jews explain away the book of Hebrews.

A believer in the better covenant.

Tim