A question about Messianic Jews.

[Thinkingstuff]

I spent some time with Messianic Jews and enjoyed the praise and worship. Yet as I speak more with people from that movement I'm becoming conserned. Some of them seem to hold to a "one law" view which I'm not familiar with and other say they should continue following the law. But I'm begining to wonder if this group is becoming like the Judaisers of the early church. Is their anyone out there with better knowledge than I about this group and can explain what they are really saying?

 

[BobRyan]

I have visited their congregations 2 or 3 times in the past - so not an expert.

They believe that the Bible is all valid (all 66 books). They also believe the Gospel is the same in the OT as in the NT and that the 10 commandments are still valid - just as God spoke them.

They also celebrate the Lev 23 annual feasts and if you go to one of their seder suppers they walk you through the Passover meal explaining how the various symbols relate to salvation and to the death of Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

Either they are right or St Paul is wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So what is the One Law view. Why should we go back and pick up Jewish distinctiveness when James relieved us of it?

 

[BobRyan]

James stated that "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" and James is the one that called the Ten Commandments "the Law of Liberty" stating that we should all live our lives as those who are to be judged by the Law of Liberty.

James argues in Acts 15 that the Acts 13 fact that Jews and Gentiles are both in the synagogues hearing scripture every Sabbath should satisfy all the disputes at the Acts 15 council. And of course Peter argues that there never was such a command in the OT stating that gentiles had to be circumcised. (Acts 15:10)

Thus Paul can say in Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law".

And so also in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

It is not clear to me that your appeal to James is gaining the objective that you may in fact have.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

James stated that "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" and James is the one that called the Ten Commandments "the Law of Liberty" stating that we should all live our lives as those who are to be judged by the Law of Liberty.

James argues in Acts 15 that the Acts 13 fact that Jews and Gentiles are both in the synagogues hearing scripture every Sabbath should satisfy all the disputes at the Acts 15 council. And of course Peter argues that there never was such a command in the OT stating that gentiles had to be circumcised. (Acts 15:10)

Thus Paul can say in Rom 3:31 "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law".

And so also in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

It is not clear to me that your appeal to James is gaining the objective that you may in fact have.

in Christ,

Bob

On the other hand it seems that his only command are those comsumerate with the noahide covenant.

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Either they are right or St Paul is wrong.

Please clarify--did you mean to type this 'as-is', or did you mean to write:
"Either they are right or St Paul is right."

 

[BobRyan]

On the other hand it seems that his only command are those comsumerate with the noahide covenant.

Far be it from me to argue that Noah was engaged in violation of the Ten Commandments.

But you mentioned James - and I am pointing out that the "Royal Law" quoted in James 2 "Love for God" Deut 6:5 and "Love for man" Lev 19:18 (not mentioned in Acts 15) and the Ten Commandment Law called "the Law of Liberty" in James 2 (and not mentioned in Acts 15) are examples of a "one Law" format for both OT and NT saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Far be it from me to argue that Noah was engaged in violation of the Ten Commandments.

But you mentioned James - and I am pointing out that the "Royal Law" quoted in James 2 "Love for God" Deut 6:5 and "Love for man" Lev 19:18 (not mentioned in Acts 15) and the Ten Commandment Law called "the Law of Liberty" in James 2 (and not mentioned in Acts 15) are examples of a "one Law" format for both OT and NT saints.

in Christ,

Bob

It seems to me that you being a SDA supporting the Law in much the same manner as the Messianics that an interesting aliance is developing here. Are both trying to bring the faith back in the direction of the Judiazers?

 

[BobRyan]

Both are upholding the validity of 66 books of scripture - not just 27, as well as the fact that the Gospel is "ONE" and the same both in the NT and OT - just as Paul argued in Gal 1.

But aside from that common ground - there are some differences between them.

 

[billwald]

heads I win, tails you lose? I'm getting senile . . . meant that either St Paul is correct or people who don't eat for religious reasons are right, can't be both.

>On the other hand it seems that his only command are those comsumerate with the noahide covenant.

is a reasonable interpretation. There is nothing in the Mosaic Covenant that binds gentiles in Hoboken. THAT 9 of the 10 commandments are re-imposed as NT "law" is immaterial to the problem. There are stop signs on the roads of England and on the roads in the US. Does this imply that the British traffic code applies to the US?

 

[BobRyan]

66 books in my Bible. Hence we find the OT quoted as being authorotative in NT.

Big problem if you want to downsize the Bible to 27 books or down further to 23 books.

So it is no wonder that Paul argues in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

It is no wonder that he says in Eph 6 when quoting the 5th commandment (honor your parents) that this is the FIRST commandment (in that unit that the Bible calls "the Ten Commandments" ) with a promise.

It is no wonder that in Rev 12 that saints are known as those who keep the Commandments of God.

One Bible - 66 books. One Gospel in all of time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I spent some time with Messianic Jews and enjoyed the praise and worship. Yet as I speak more with people from that movement I'm becoming conserned. Some of them seem to hold to a "one law" view which I'm not familiar with and other say they should continue following the law. But I'm begining to wonder if this group is becoming like the Judaisers of the early church. Is their anyone out there with better knowledge than I about this group and can explain what they are really saying?

GE:
Thinkingstuff, If Jesus Christ to you is your Lord, God and Saviour, forget the 'Messianics', they reject that faith of yours. Spend some time with the only Sabbath Day believing people on earth who originated from the Reformation.

I know the Messianics; I have been in conversation with just about every internet pastor or president of theirs. As many boffins, as many 'Churches', and the weirder the guru's opinion, the more popular the 'Movement'. What a tragedy for God's cause on earth that the Sabbath is so annexed and its truth so perverted by the 'Movements' that each claim God's Sabbath Day as were they the only guardians of it whom God authorised.

Join the Seventh Day Baptists! As far as I have knowledge of them, they seem to be 'straight', because as far as I have had contact with them I can still profess and confess and believe and live the Apostolicum and the Formulae of Unity of the Protestant faith --- including the Sabbath and despite they believe the Seventh Day Sabbath on the basis of the Law still. (I believe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ by and in resurrection from the dead, invested the Seventh Day with its particular Christian meaning which it before His Resurrection "On the Sabbath Day", did not have.)

In South Africa my country, where I live there are no SDBs, otherwise I would have worshipped with them for sure! But I do not, cannot, and will not worship an idol given the Name of Jesus Christ only to deceive people away from the saving faith in Christ, Lord and God - to me for one - though I be the only so help me God!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It seems to me that you being a SDA supporting the Law in much the same manner as the Messianics that an interesting aliance is developing here. Are both trying to bring the faith back in the direction of the Judiazers?

GE:
Far worse, Thinkingstuff, FAR WORSE! The Seventh-day Adventists are in OPEN PACT with Roman Catholocism to destroy the "times and Law" of God as Jesus Christ BECAME it; in other words, plainly, the SDAs are in cahoots with antichrist. ABSOLUTELY. I have had a life's experience for PROOF, confirmed by their EVERY DAY life and teaching. They are greater antichrists than the pope and his cohorts could dream.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:
Far worse, Thinkingstuff, FAR WORSE! The Seventh-day Adventists are in OPEN PACT with Roman Catholocism to destroy the "times and Law" of God as Jesus Christ BECAME it; in other words, plainly, the SDAs are in cahoots with antichrist. ABSOLUTELY. I have had a life's experience for PROOF, confirmed by their EVERY DAY life and teaching. They are greater antichrists than the pope and his cohorts could dream.

I would like to know your experience how the SDA have an Open Pact with the RCC and how their every day life and teaching. I would really be interested to hear. I have a friend of the family - a grandmother figure for me - who was SDA and she is one of the most remarkable women I have ever met. She displayed Jesus Christ better than anyone I have ever met. Even though I wasn't related to her she always treated me like family - especially since I'm 1/2 latin and she was caucasian. Rather than looking down on my heritage she treated me well and always had me on her lap telling me about Jesus. She was a great cook and never used meat and she was really involved in her church and the times I visited her church I didn't notice any weird teachings or things that I associate with the doctrine of the legalistic standing of the sda's. So pleace tell me what your experiences were. I'd like to know. I do know they have problems with the doctrines of grace but do you have more info on them?

 

[BobRyan]

I would like to know your experience how the SDA have an Open Pact with the RCC and how their every day life and teaching. I would really be interested to hear. I have a friend of the family - a grandmother figure for me - who was SDA and she is one of the most remarkable women I have ever met. She displayed Jesus Christ better than anyone I have ever met.

I too am SDA I too would like to know about the "open pact" that I have with the RCC.

This would be facinating story for me as well.:type:

The alternative is to simply argue positions "sola scriptura" - but that is another subject.

(This is the Messianic Jews thread -- right?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

My experience with Messianics is there is an element of establishing again the beggerly elements of the Law, a restablishment of diet rules, abstaining from meats, and honoring days, months, and seasons.

If one wishes to do these things for their conscience sake, ok. But if it be taught as righteousness or a test of Christian authenticity, then yes, it is a resurrection of Judaizing and to be rejected by all who love the Gospel.

Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe.

 

[BobRyan]

Your argument would work better if it were made "sola scriptura" instead of in the papal pronouncement model.

Try using something like a Bible text combined with a quote from a Messianic Jewish source showing them to be in violation of something.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My experience with Messianics is there is an element of establishing again the beggerly elements of the Law, a restablishment of diet rules, abstaining from meats, and honoring days, months, and seasons.

If one wishes to do these things for their conscience sake, ok. But if it be taught as righteousness or a test of Christian authenticity, then yes, it is a resurrection of Judaizing and to be rejected by all who love the Gospel.

Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe.

I think you're right. They've seemed to move from a charasmatic church with trappings of judaism that aren't based on anything really legalistic. to a view of following the law as specified in Torah. There is a term used called "one law" that expresses this view and I wonder how this doctrine works and is it a way back into what the judaizers were attempting to accomplish.

 

[BobRyan]

It seems to me that you being a SDA supporting the Law in much the same manner as the Messianics that an interesting aliance is developing here. Are both trying to bring the faith back in the direction of the Judiazers?

Adventists do not celebrate the ceremonial law.

For Adventists the New Covenant "has value" such that the Law of God (as Jeremiah knew it in Jer 31:33) is written on the heart and mind just as Heb 8:7-10 states.

Thus as Paul said in 1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

If you want to spin his statement as "Judiazing" feel free - but the sola scriptura model works better in my POV.

BTW I am more than a little surprised to find that Adventists are now a larger denomination world wide than Southern Baptists
http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html

When I first began looking into these topics of difference Adventists were only about half that size.

in Christ,

Bob