Messianic Movement

Maybe they wish to hear what they want? I wondered the same thing, Abiyah.

 

Ok - the hard questions.

In Acts 21, Romans 14 and Acts 15 and 16:1-3 we see one rule for the Jews and another for the Gentile Christian.

However in Romans 14 you have an interesting situation "One man OBSERVES one day above another while another man OBSERVES EVERY DAY alike". Neither practice is identified as "better than the other".

Now we know that Paul OBSERVED Passover and other feast days as well as observing certain practices regarding the taking of a vow.

He also seems to support the notion that he never asked Jews to stop keeping the customs, traditions and laws of Moses (according to his oft repeated defense in Acts 21-28).

In Galations 2 - Paul is very glad to report that the gentile Titus is not observing any of it.

So you have Jewish Christians observing all of it, and Gentiles being exempt from the feast day observances and also circumcision (which meant fully conforming to Hebrew traditions, laws and feastival observances as Galations 5 points out.)

So are the Messianic Jews promoting that kind of distinction for Jews - or are they claiming that Gentiles ought to be Messianic Jews?

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all, the term "Messianic" should be defined.There are Messianic Jews, Messianics [not Jewish] "Two House", and a whole group of various "roots" people who also define themselves as Messianic. The Messianic movement is just as confusing as mainstream Christianity.

 

I think you are asking the wrong question. Why do you need to ask a bunch of people you have never met questions dealing with spiritual matters. Do you have a Bible? Your answers are in there. All you need to do is read that thing. If you have a question, ask the author of the Book and let Him show you the answer in due time.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I'm a fundamental Baptist and don't claim to know everything. But I know Who does! And He doesn't spend any amount of time on this board.

 

What about Acts 15 and Acts 21? They both seem to show one rule for the Jews and one for the Gentiles when it comes to ceremonial practices such as feast days.

In Romans 14 Paul seems to leave them up to the individual to choose and that anything chosen is fine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

One important fact to note about the Messianic movement, is that if they were not evangalising to the Jews as they are, which other churches would be?

I have brought it up here before that the Apostles and others in the New Testament used the Old Testament to witness Jesus Christ to the Jews, yet a number of Christians today do not know how to show a Jew from the Old Testament that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah. Yet the Messianic Movement is there doing this as a part of the body of Christ.

 

Good thread Abiyah et al.

To me the more important issue is figuring out how believing Jews and believing Gentiles can come together as one Body in each region as it was in the book of Acts. A Jew will always be a Jew just as a Gentile will never be. But both share the very same faith in Yeshua Jesus. Both have the same hope. And both are commanded to love one another so that the world might know Jesus is Lord.

Yes?

Jim

 

My next question is what does Torah observant truly mean. Originally there were the ten declarations [commandments] which had 603 further breakdowns added.[ total of 613] Many of these are not even applicable outside of Jerusalem. So is it really possible for someone to claim that they are fully Torah observant?

 

Speaking of Romans 14 where Paul affirms BOTH those that eat meat offerred to idols and those who do not.

Where Paul affirms BOTH those who observe EVERY one of the feast days alike AND those who select ONE to OBSERVE ABOVE another..

In Romans 14 Paul is not making the point about "saved" vs "not saved" but rather showing that BOTH practics are being done in honor to God and BOTH will stand before God in their God-honoring practices.

He does not say "one group will start following the practices of the other group" in Romans 14.

Rather He defends BOTH as God-honoring.

In Acts 15 it is not Paul making the decision -- but James and the Elders of the church.

In Acts 15 Paul argues that Gentiles should not "BEcome Jews" which was the meaning of circumcision according to Ephesians 2.

In Galations 2 Paul argues proudly that Titus never submitted.


Speaking of James --

No doubt this is true. But the argument is not that all gentiles will become circumcised if given enough time. In fact Moses' law did not require that of the Gentiles.

And in Act 16 the first thing Paul does is have a Jew circumcises - who was not really inclined to that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lets not confuse the Torah with the Mishnah.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Speaking of Romans 14 where Paul affirms BOTH those that eat meat offerred to idols and those who do not.

Agreed.


]Where Paul affirms BOTH those who observe EVERY one of the feast days alike AND those who select ONE to OBSERVE ABOVE another..

While that is an interesting data point it does not match the text. Instead of saying "one man observes all the feasts using this method of calculation while another man observes all the feasts using a different method of calculation " Paul makes a very DIFFERENT argument - Paul says "ONE OBSERVES ONE day ABOVE another" - Not "one calculation above another" showing a preference for one of the feast days OVER another not a preference for one calculation over another. So for example observing Passover over the feast of booths. While ANOTHER "OBSERVES EACH DAY " - so for example - BOTH the feast of booths and Passover.

This can not be made to say "while another observes them all based on another way to calculate the feast days".

It simply is not in the text.

I can see that debate within the Jewish community - but Paul is arguing about a church-wide problem Jew and Gentile and it has to do with observing ONE feast day instead of another - (so that would be NOT observing some of them) and another OBSERVES ALL of them.

He is not contrasting "Observing ALL the days using ONE system of calculation vs Observing ALL the days using ANOTHER system of calculation".


It just isn't there.

Bob Said --
In Romans 14 Paul is not making the point about "saved" vs "not saved" but rather showing that BOTH practics are being done in honor to God and BOTH will stand before God in their God-honoring practices.

He does not say "one group will start following the practices of the other group" in Romans 14.

Rather He defends BOTH as God-honoring.

Bob said --
In Acts 15 it is not Paul making the decision -- but James and the Elders of the church.

In Acts 15 Paul argues that Gentiles should not "become Jews" which was the meaning of circumcision according to Ephesians 2.

In Galations 2 Paul argues proudly that Titus never submitted.

No these are two different things.

In acts 16 Paul is insisting that the Jew Timothy BE circumcised. IN Galations 2 Paul proudly proclaims that Titus was NOT as though that was a badge of honor for Gentiles to ignore it.

In Acts 21 - the point of the vow was to "prove" that there was one set of requirements for the Jews that was NOT being applied to the Gentiles. The "accusation" was that Paul was making the Gentile application to the Jews instead of observing the distinction they had agreed upon in Acts 15's council.

Let's see if that is correct --

Galations 2 -
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.


Paul is showing his defiance and showing holding Titus up as the glowing example of the result.

He goes even FURTHER in Galations 5

Galations 5 --
1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.


Obviously the context is the message to gentiles FOR if this were applied to Jews then Paul would be forcing Timothy in Acts 16 to lose his salvation.

So obviously Paul is pointing out that the abuse of the system (that is insisting that it applied to Gentiles) was gross error.

But he was NOT arguing that for Jews to be circumcised was to lose their salvation. Rather it shows that all arguments made for Gentiles to be circumcised were in error and Gentiles that gave in to those arguments were in danger of losing salvation.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 10, 2003, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]