Will the real Messianic Jews please stand up

[Shermana]

Hi, Tar

I just checked out the rules there. It seems I would have to either change my religion ID to "Messianic" and label the forum as such, or label the forum "Bible Believer, O&NT". Either way, it seems, I would be the only one on the forum -- I seem to be the only one of either description here.

What you call yourself doesn't matter, it's what you believe that matters. There are plenty of people who claim to be "Christian" but not have it as their titles who range in a variety of beliefs that one could arguably define as Christian but may seem as a stretch to others. Just as there are people who post in practically every Eastern DIR from Jainsim to Sikhism to Buddhism.

But for Messianic Jews, we are very specific when it comes to your core belief. You must believe in Torah and believe in the Messiah-hood of Jesus. From there, individual theological details and doctrines and canon issues come into debate. Titles from there are another story.

 

[Thief]

So...to participate here.....
You profess Moses first.....then the Carpenter.....

Just asking

 

[BlandOatmeal]

So...to participate here.....
You profess Moses first.....then the Carpenter.....

Just asking

Hi, Thief.

Anyone here can participate if they are polite and do not get contentious. PRESUMABLY this is a "Messianic Jewish" DIR, where Messianic Jews can answer questions posed by others about "our" identity, beliefs and practices. Since nobody here self-identifies as a MJ, that's all a moot point. For the time being, I find this is about the only place where I can discuss things important to me without being flamed by Muslims and Atheists, and where people of similar beliefs to mine can hold their own against Trinitarian crusaders. This may be a bubble in space and time; but then, so is my life.

You also seemed to be asking about whether I followed Moses' teaching more than Jesus. Is that true? I see no fundamental difference between the two. The differences between Judaism and Christianity have nothing to do with Moses and Jesus. Until the destruction of the second temple, (the forerunners of modern so-called)Jews and Christians worshipped side-by-side. AFTER the destruction of the temple, they went their separate ways. Both camps in Israel were exiled, and they coped with their dispersion in different ways.

The Jews-to-be ultimately wrote down their oral traditions, and adapted their observances to exile conditions. They took advantage of an already widespread network of synagogues, and bestowed some of the former priestly dignity on the rabbis. The head of every house, moreover, became a "priest" of sorts for his family.

The Christians-to-be had made tremendous inroads among non-Jews by the time the temple fell. It's my belief that the vast majority of these Gentile Christians, having nurtured anti-Jewish prejudices in their pre-Christian days, were quick to see the fall of the temple as a judgment from God upon the Jewish people. By the time of Justin Martyr (ABT 100-165 CE), ethnic Jews had become all but excluded from Christian congregations.

Moses? Jesus? Look at what I've just written, and you'll see that their teachings were just snatched, a little here and a little there, to provide justification to what essentially became an ethnic split.

The Messianic movement has been around in various forms for some time in recent centuries, but I think it first drew widespread attention when Moishe Rosen, an Orthodox Jew-turned-Baptist preacher, formed "Jews for Jesus" in 1973. This was, and probably still is, essentially a Baptist outreach to ethnic Jews. Although he was clearly Christian, many Christian groups rejected the notion that Jews could become Christians and still call themselves Jews. That rejection was enough, to identify MJ as a "third way" between Xianity and Judaism. Since that time, many people who accepted both the "Old Testament" ("Tanakh") and the "New Testament" pretty much stumbled into groups with this new label. Some, like the late Rev. Rosen, are thinly-veiled Christian missionaries, whereas others are practicing Jews, full members of Jewish synagogues.

There are many groups who believe they represent both New Testament and Old Testament doctrine, who do not call themselves Messianics yet are rejected by Jews and Christians alike. Notable among these are the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and the former Worldwide Church of God (before they became "acceptable" Trinitarian Christians). Their existence complicates definitions a bit; but as a rule of thumb, I would say a practical definition of a Messianic is someone who believes Jesus is the promised Messiah, accepts the validity of the Jewish people (and, to a large extent, Israel), identifies largely with the Bible (OT and NT) and is roundly rejected by Christians, Jews, Mormons, JWs and other such groups.

I suppose that makes us the "junk drawer", but since Jesus himself fit this description, I am not ashamed to be here.

 

[Shermana]

So...to participate here.....
You profess Moses first.....then the Carpenter.....

Just asking

You could also say that you must profess that the Carpenter professed what Moses professed.

 

[Zardoz]

Brother Zardoz, how would you respond to such claims that by taking the title of "Jewish" while believing in Yeshua that are we "kidding ourselves"?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3516713-post129.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3516840-post133.html

Ah, but that's the problem in a nutshell. Both posts use the term 'Christian'.

I am most certainly not a Christian, in that term's most commonly understood meaning,
namely a believer in trinitarian theology in some form. AKA Incarnationist theology.
That theology is forbidden for Jews; but not for gentiles, who are allowed to have an intermediary.

In that light, I agree with the posts. :sorry1: One can not be both, IMHO.

I hold to an Adoptionist theology, which does not create a trinity in any form.

In fact, I don't even insist that Yeshua must be the coming Messiah ben David.
He serves quite well even as just Messiah ben Yosef, the Suffering Servant.

Yes, I believe in the two messiahs; Messiah ben Yosef & Messiah ben David.
It's possible they are one & the same person, but don't necessarily have to be.

One leads to the other; the Age of Galut Edom ends and the Messianic Age begins.
The same People, the Jews, transform from one to the other. Maybe not individuals,
just as the same generation who left Egypt did not enter the Land.




'

 

[Shermana]

Well if we agree that "Christian" in contemporary usage does not mean what it likely meant before the invention of the Trinity and that the term is as highjacked as "Messianic Jew" then we can agree, but purely out of Semantics. But I'm sure those like the Mormons, JWs, Christadelphians, Unitarians, and to an extent, Oneness Pentacostals would object to this idea.

I still think there's merit to arguing for the historical usage of the term "Christian". I may not agree with the Book of Act's entire Theological aspects, but I think there may be some historical truths in there (and some interpolations such as the Council of Jerusalem episode), and one of those is that the original use of the word "Christian" was for those under Peter's authority in Antioch. And as we know, Peter's authority had nothing to do with the Trinity or Pauline antinomianism.

However, I believe that post was not just about the use of the word "Christian" but for general belief in Yeshu regardless of how one views him. Though I most certainly agree that "Messianic Jews" who ascribe to the Trinity and call themselves Jewish are kidding themselves.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

What you call yourself doesn't matter, it's what you believe that matters. There are plenty of people who claim to be "Christian" but not have it as their titles who range in a variety of beliefs that one could arguably define as Christian but may seem as a stretch to others. Just as there are people who post in practically every Eastern DIR from Jainsim to Sikhism to Buddhism.

But for Messianic Jews, we are very specific when it comes to your core belief. You must believe in Torah and believe in the Messiah-hood of Jesus. From there, individual theological details and doctrines and canon issues come into debate. Titles from there are another story.

I think what one calls himself matters. It's like a computer file -- You can call it anything you want; but once you name it, that name has an important functional meaning. We'll work it out, but it may take a while.

Shalom shalom

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Ah, but that's the problem in a nutshell. Both posts use the term 'Christian'.

I am most certainly not a Christian, in that term's most commonly understood meaning,
namely a believer in trinitarian theology in some form. AKA Incarnationist theology.
That theology is forbidden for Jews; but not for gentiles, who are allowed to have an intermediary.

In that light, I agree with the posts. :sorry1: One can not be both, IMHO.

I hold to an Adoptionist theology, which does not create a trinity in any form.

In fact, I don't even insist that Yeshua must be the coming Messiah ben David.
He serves quite well even as just Messiah ben Yosef, the Suffering Servant.

Yes, I believe in the two messiahs; Messiah ben Yosef & Messiah ben David.
It's possible they are one & the same person, but don't necessarily have to be.

One leads to the other; the Age of Galut Edom ends and the Messianic Age begins.
The same People, the Jews, transform from one to the other. Maybe not individuals,
just as the same generation who left Egypt did not enter the Land.
'

Hi, Zardoz

I probably agree with you and Shermana both, in broad outline, than I do with the vast majority of posters on RF; so I'm glad to see you both posting in this DIR.

Trinitarians say, essentially, that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph but the "natural" son of "God the Father". Paul said he was the descendant of David by the flesh:

Rom 1
[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2 Tim 2
[8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

and so does John:

Rev 5
[5] And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Rev 22
[16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Evangelical Christians insist that this lineage comes through Mary, whose parents early church tradition identifies as Anna and Joachim, neither of which were shown to be desendants of David. What's more, TWO genealogies are shown from David to Jesus (in Matt & Luke, resp), differing at JOSEPH's parents, not Jesus'. One of those had to have been adoptive, and the other was probably natural.

Adoption by God was also clearly stated:

Heb 1
[5] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Therefore, yes, I too am an adoptionist. Jesus was born by miraculous means, but I believe his very HUMAN yDNA was that of Joseph. God does not have human DNA, because He is not human: He is immortal.

All that said, I believe we are in the small minority, even among Messianics.

 

[Shermana]

I think what one calls himself matters. It's like a computer file -- You can call it anything you want; but once you name it, that name has an important functional meaning. We'll work it out, but it may take a while.

Shalom shalom

To an extent. If I call my belief "Smurfus Maximus" or "Shermana's Sham" (recommended by a particular forum member who shall not be named), or "The real deal Hebrew" obviously that doesn't help indicate that I'm a Torah observant Ashkenazi who believes in Yeshua's commentary, predictions, and claims. And if I said "Real Deal Messianic Jew" that's not helping either. However, "Messianic Judaism" as a word has too many connotations with the Evangelical movement. I often do introduce myself as "Messianic Judaism" when asked, but this always involves clarification, as I am in the "fringe minority" among those, since the grand majority are basically similar to Evangelicals who happen to follow Jewish customs.

There's a reason I chose "Old Israelite Nazarene", which was recommended by another Jewish forum member, (he said "Ancient" but that didn't fit the character limit), I think it perfectly matches what I believe I am at least trying to represent/"reconstruct". I believe that what I believe is close to what the original "Christians" did. But I can't call myself "Christian" because that word is highjacked by the same kind of folk that have highjacked the term "Messianic Judaism". It gets to the point that when a word is swept away by pretenders to the throne, it's more effort than it's worth (at least on the surface) to try to reclaim this term, and any attempt to reclaim it brings with it a "long and hardy tale" about why I feel entitled to use the word when 99% of the rest use it differently. Which may in fact actually be a good conversation starter, but not always.

And then I have to explain why I believe the earliest pre-Marcionite Gnostics were closer to the original Christians than the proto-Orthodox themselves, and why I believe in much of the NT Apocrypha, which is another can of worms. I could even say I'm "Gnostic" like how James the Just was called "Jacob the Gnostic" in the Talmud, but then I have to explain why my brand of belief in "Gnosticism" differs from the 99% rest of Gnosticism that is antagnostic to the early Jewish-Gnostic-Christian beliefs like those of "Cerinthus "and apparently, James.

Until then, I think my current religious title best represents what I am conveying, and I can say its a "subset" of "Messianic Judaism" but I really want nothing to do for the most part with the "Jews for Jesus" type movements and congregations unless I'm there to help break their connection to the gentile theologies and historical distortions, of which they are generally too attached to give up or think critically about.

 

[Shermana]

For instance, Bland Oatmeal, you may notice that both Zardoz and I reject the Trinity and the Epistles of Paul, as well as the idea of the traditional Protestant Canon of 66 books, and a few other important "traditional Christian" doctrines.

We also differ in quite a few details regarding Cosmology, Canon, traditional Jewish beliefs, and such, but those are quite minor and relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and I have no problem calling him a brother. However, I would have much difficulty calling most Messianic Jews "brothers", though I can make much leeway for Trinitarians and those who believe in Paul if they acknowledge a similar belief about the Law and the nature of Jesus's message. However, I would most certainly never call most Christians "brothers" with their absolute disdain for the Law. I would make leeway for those who believe the Law is only binding for Jewish Christians, even if I disagree, as long as they accept that Jesus did not abolish the Law or that the "New Covenant does away with the Laws of the Old" or "The Law is Carnal" or something like that, which personally infuriates me.

So does this mean Zardoz and I are not "messianic Jews"?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...And then I have to explain why I believe the earliest pre-Marcionite Gnostics were closer to the original Christians than the proto-Orthodox themselves, and why I believe in much of the NT Apocrypha...

By that time, I imagine your listener is looking at his watch...

 

[BlandOatmeal]

For instance, Bland Oatmeal, you may notice that both Zardoz and I reject the Trinity and the Epistles of Paul, as well as the idea of the traditional Protestant Canon of 66 books, and a few other important "traditional Christian" doctrines.

We also differ in quite a few details regarding Cosmology, Canon, traditional Jewish beliefs, and such, but those are quite minor and relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and I have no problem calling him a brother. However, I would have much difficulty calling most Messianic Jews "brothers", though I can make much leeway for Trinitarians and those who believe in Paul if they acknowledge a similar belief about the Law and the nature of Jesus's message. However, I would most certainly never call most Christians "brothers" with their absolute disdain for the Law. I would make leeway for those who believe the Law is only binding for Jewish Christians, even if I disagree, as long as they accept that Jesus did not abolish the Law or that the "New Covenant does away with the Laws of the Old" or "The Law is Carnal" or something like that, which personally infuriates me.

So does this mean Zardoz and I are not "messianic Jews"?

You're definitely not Messianic Jews, because you voted "Jewish" and "Other", respectively, in my poll.

I don't know whom to call a "brother", because I have nothing to compare him with... Ah, I know -- Jesus is my brother. He said so. Therefore, if you're like Jesus, you're my brother. I do have three sisters, though, so I have an idea what that means. I consider my wife to be a true sister. As for the rest of you, I think I ought to let God sort that one out. I love surprises. I'd like to see all kinds of people in heaven, praising God. Sometimes I look in the mirror, and I wonder,

"Do I want to be in heaven with something like THAT? FOREVER???"

Hmmm... It's a hard one to call. It does take all kinds, you know... In heaven, will we really be all that different? Or will our socks smell just as bad, only we're all full of love and forgiveness. That covers a multitude of sins, even perhaps dirty socks.

I don't put much stock in doctrine, for getting people into heaven. I look at the teaching of the scriptures, just to help me figure things out. It's the DOING part that gets us into heaven or keeps us out; and that part is usually pretty easy. Jesus said, "do unto others as you want them to do unto you", or some such. Do I want everyone in heaven to not wash their socks for 100 years? Probably not -- so I should wash my own more often than that. But what about three days? Would I mind, if they didn't wash them after three days? Those are the really important things, I think.

 

[Katzpur]

There are many groups who believe they represent both New Testament and Old Testament doctrine, who do not call themselves Messianics yet are rejected by Jews and Christians alike. Notable among these are the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and the former Worldwide Church of God (before they became "acceptable" Trinitarian Christians).

Hmmm. I'm a Christians and I don't reject anyone who worships Jesus Christ and looks to Him for salvation.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Hmmm. I'm a Christians and I don't reject anyone who worships Jesus Christ and looks to Him for salvation.

Thanks, Katz

You add variety to the mix here. I think there are actually three of us here who are Messianics, though I'm the only one who polled that way (and as of yet, my "religion" ID still doesn't say "Messianic".) You polled as "Christian", being a Latter Day Saint -- which, of course, nearly all Christians reject as "non-Christian".

Maybe you could have polled as a Messianic, or even a Jew

Shalom shalom.

PS. I don't worship Jesus -- I worship God, our Dad.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks, Katz

You add variety to the mix here. I think there are actually three of us here who are Messianics, though I'm the only one who polled that way (and as of yet, my "religion" ID still doesn't say "Messianic".) You polled as "Christian", being a Latter Day Saint -- which, of course, nearly all Christians reject as "non-Christian".

Maybe you could have polled as a Messianic, or even a Jew

Shalom shalom.

PS. I don't worship Jesus -- I worship God, our Dad.

You know, it really doesn't make one bit of difference to me who rejects me as being "non-Christian," as long as it's not God. And I am absolutely 100% confident that He knows me as a Christian. Furthermore, "nearly all Christians" do not reject Mormons as "non-Christian." Many of the more fundamentalist ones do, but far from all of them.

At any rate, I am certainly not a Messianic Jew or any other kind of Jew, for that matter. I am a Christian, which is why I responded to the poll in that way. God the Father is my Father in Heaven, and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, is my Savior. That qualifies me as a Christian.

 

[Thief]

I suppose we are seeking a line of division.....Moses or Jesus?
And if the line is erased then the term....Messianic?

I do draw a line between Moses and Jesus.
(even though Jesus did not come to abolish the law).

I see Moses and his handiwork heavy in ritual and gesture.
(removing sin by the blood of an animal for example)

I see Jesus as a corrective prophet.
(removing sin at the source, of mind and heart....by teaching parables)

I am fond of the life of Moses and Genesis. I write about it a lot, here at the forum.
But the Carpenter is my primary Inspiration.

I do say that the Carpenter came to save His brother and sister.
I do not say he did so by blood.

His gesture at the last supper was installed as a reminder.
It was not intended to be the saving grace.
Neither was His death on the cross a pivot point of salvation.

So I am not Jew.
I do not follow Moses.
I do draw mind set of the parables....but I cannot call myself Christian.
(too much ritual and superstition in dogmatic faith)

So as a rogue theologian.....maybe I don't belong here either.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

You know, it really doesn't make one bit of difference to me who rejects me as being "non-Christian," as long as it's not God. And I am absolutely 100% confident that He knows me as a Christian. Furthermore, "nearly all Christians" do not reject Mormons as "non-Christian." Many of the more fundamentalist ones do, but far from all of them.

At any rate, I am certainly not a Messianic Jew or any other kind of Jew, for that matter. I am a Christian, which is why I responded to the poll in that way. God the Father is my Father in Heaven, and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, is my Savior. That qualifies me as a Christian.

I consider Mormons to be Christians -- for historical reasons, and because they self-identify that way. One of my ancestors, my ggggrandfather, became a Mormon after deserting my ggggrandmother (a Native American). He was very close to Joseph Smith and James Jesse Strang. His brother wrote the Book of Abraham from Smith's dictation.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Polled as Jewish.

As my religion label identifies, I am a Jew who is also an Ebionite. Like one is a Jew of any branch, say Reform, that does not change the Jewishness but defines how one expresses it.

I follow the teachings of Yeshua as best as possible, knowing full well the records of his teachings were in Edom's hands, and not to be fully trusted. So I weigh and judge these records in the light of Torah Judaism, and that which rings true I accept and those that do not I reject as falsifications.

Even with this, there is much wheat in the chaff, just the so called Sermon on the Mount is rich in depth and applicable insights.

Zardoz,

I am trying to think of an inclusive definition, that fits my own beliefs as well as those of others. What if "Messianic Judaism" were defined as follows:

1. Accept Jesus as God's Anointed.

2. Reject the Trinity doctrine.

Anyone who believes those two tenets is rejected by most Jews because of #1, and by most Christians because of #2.

Would you include yourself in that classification? Same question for Shemana and others.

 

[Shermana]

SheRmana!

Most "Messianic Jews" are in fact Trinitarians.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SheRmana!

Most "Messianic Jews" are in fact Trinitarians.

I stand corrected on spelling, Sherm. Meanwhile, I'm not getting much response here in the area of getting a thread together where "we" can profitably discuss the Bible amongst "ourselves" -- mainly because "we" refuse to take on a common identity.

While I'm waiting for what seems like pie in the sky, I have a doctrinal question: What do people here, specifically Bible believers, think of the former "Pietist" movement? You needn't know the history of it, except that it arose in the 17th century and greatly influenced modern Christianity. Some of its emphases were:

1. The earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia ("little churches within the church")
2. The Christian priesthood being universal, the laity should share in the spiritual government of the Church
3. A knowledge of Christianity must be attended by the practice of it as its indispensable sign and supplement
4. Instead of merely didactic, and often bitter, attacks on the heterodox and unbelievers, a sympathetic and kindly treatment of them
5. A reorganization of the theological training of the universities, giving more prominence to the devotional life
6. A different style of preaching, namely, in the place of pleasing rhetoric, the implanting of Christianity in the inner or new man, the soul of which is faith, and its effects the fruits of life

-- Spener, Philipp Jakob, Pia desideria (1675) c/o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism


Please base your answers on items ##1-6 above. Do you think these were postitive steps in the church? Do you think something similar to them belongs in Judaism?

PS. Concerning Trinitarian Messianics, I am not concerned with them, and am not particularly interested in endlessly listening to their dogma. I want NON-Trinitarian Messianics, who are rejected by Christians and Jews alike, to have a place of discussion. I thought I made that clear.