Christian and Messianic dialogue

[pioneer]

Apr 17, 2009 16:16:39 GMT -5 John said:

but if you have no problem saying the days of the week why do you have a problem saying easter?

Re-read the post before, modified it.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 16, 2009 22:35:35 GMT -5 John said:

NLB:

all i am saying is that christians may not believe in these things, but 70% of its leaders do. so that is how i define christianity.
and most of the time, stuff like replacement theology and such ARE central to the faith of those christians. just like the deity of Yeshua is one of YOUR version of christianities central doctrines.

NLB- you may not believe some of these things, but MOST christian apologists and such do. You- a FOLLOWER- may not know the basic stance of those who call themselves christians. the official christian doctrine DOES support replacement theology and such. look at the people who started christianity (ie, the early church father like origen and such).

I suppose I must acknowledge that there are different "versions" of Christianity out there. I hate to acknowledge this because it makes Christianity lose any sort of definition whatsoever. However, in our society, groups of people are teaching all sorts of things and labeling it Christian.

Therefore, when I speak of my beliefs, I can only speak for myself and the Christians that I do know. My beliefs are evangelical (do not think about politics -- that is not my definition of evangelical. My definition of evangelical is holding to what has traditionally been taught as Christian orthodoxy).

How many evangelicals (using the proper definition of the word and not the political definition) are there in the United States? I don't know. I suppose the number is shrinking. It is very hard to know because of how broad and widespread Christianity has become. From the people at my school, it seems that most of the scholars and mainline denominations are liberal and deny most of what I believe. But because I cannot see the full picture, how do I know if it is the liberals who are in reality the minority? There is no way to know.

In the postmodern world it is going to be almost impossible to find out how many people hold to the historic Christian faith (what has been referred to by evangelicals as Christian orthodoxy) and how many do not agree. The reason it is so difficult is because different groups might use the same words and the same religious language, but mean completely different things.

The Christian apologists that I read do NOT believe in replacement theology and would argue against it, as would the pastors that I know. However, I tend to only read Christian authors who hold to the same "version" of Christianity as me. The same holds true to the choice of church that I attend. I'm not going to belong to a church that contradicts what I believe.

Does all of Christianity reject replacement theology? No. Of course not.

you must realize that [glow=red,2,300]even during the time of shaul [/glow]his writings were being polluted because he spread them to people who did not understand what he was saying. like romans. Most of romans was written for the jews (in fact many scholars debate whether or not some was written in hebrew now), and you have to be jewish to understand it (on top of that, you probably want to understand 1 cent judaism). gentiles who read romans, or jews who are not familiar with judaism, will not understand the original meaning of shaul.

Now this I have an issue with...a major issue. I find this to be just about as bad as when my liberal professors, who all deny the inspiration of Scripture, claim that in order to understand Paul I must be a scholar of Greek philosophy. Yes, two of my professors have claimed that a person cannot understand understand Paul unless they are familiar with Greek thought. They claim that everything in Paul's letters comes from Greek culture and Greek ideas. Am I a scholar of Greek thought? No. I haven't even read any of the Greek philosophers, and I have taken no course in philosophy. According to them, I CANNOT understand the New Testament. They think it is impossible to understand the NT apart from studying Greek stuff.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with that perspective.

I also completely disagree with the idea that a person CANNOT understand Romans unless they are Jewish.

The reason that I disagree with both the statement that a person has to be learned in Greek thought and the statement that a person must be Jewish in order to understand Paul is that these statements do not acknowledge that it is the Holy Spirit who allows people to understand Scripture. If Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it only makes sense for the Holy Spirit to help people to understand it. Saying that a person must be schooled in a particular thought system in order to understand Scripture leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to work.

I also think that there is stuff in Romans that suggests that Paul's audience consisted of both Jewish believers and non-Jewish believers in Jesus.

The first part of Romans 11:13 suggests that the letter was intended to be received by at least some non-Jews. However, when considering the whole letter, I think there is a large amount of evidence that shows there were also Jews who were intended to receive the letter.

and from these misunderstandings, christianity was founded

now, i will say that christianity started out as a hellenized version of the way, with not that much of a difference. however, the doctrine was very shakey at its begginging and it ended up as supporting the things that mesianic jews oppose.

I'm sorry...I don't understand. I consider both Messianic Jews and Christianity to have the same origin. My definition of Christianity includes those that you are calling the Messianic Jews of the first century. In my mind, they are the same thing. The first century believers were not divided up into two groups or two religions.

Ephesians 4:1-6

Ephesians 2:14-18


The word "catholic" in its original meaning means universal. It was in this sense that the word was originally used by the church. It was not meant to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, specifically.

If the first century Christians were considered to be one in Jesus Christ, whether they were of Jewish ancestry or of non-Jewish ancestry, then why are you splitting up believers according to whether or not they were Jewish?

When Christianity talks about its origins it goes all the way back to the first century. It does not start with the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, of course the Roman Catholic Church would argue against my view. They would say that only they are the true Church, and everyone else is something else. They would say that non-Catholics are not true Christians. However, I'm not going by the Roman Catholic definition.

if you follow the whole law, yet offend ONE point than you are guilty of all (yaakov 2). therfore, EVERY law is important, including the kashrut and such. christians must follow every law that is set in place by YHVH. this was made possible by Yeshua, who puts his Ruach HaKodesh in us and destroys our Yetzer Hara through removing is as the foreskin of our human nature in spiritual circumcision.

so if you were truely a child of the light, you would follow the kashrut laws (unless you are dining with gentiles, which it is overruled, so not considered breaking).

my point of this is to show that EVERY doctrine can be used to define christianity if it is part of christianity itself.

I'm not seeking to be justified by the Law, and I do not believe that a person is justified by following food laws.

the reason that many Christians do not follow the food laws is because we interpret certain passages from the NT as saying that a believer does not have to follow the food laws. Of course a believer can choose to follow the food laws. Food law does not define Christianity. A person can be Christian and decide to follow the food laws (as long as they are not doing so in order to gain salvation), and a person can be Christian and decide not to follow the food laws because they believe that God has made all foods clean. What a person does with the Food Laws does not define the essential beliefs of the Christian faith.

So wait...do you believe that the purpose of Jesus' death was so that people could live sinless lives?

[pioneer]

This is why you are labeled with Lawless Christians.
Did Yeshua say to everyone "Go and sin no more."?
Did he intend for you to break the law. bury the law, did he nail it to his cross?
Again if you will follow Sha'ul as he imitates the Messiah, I'll shut up.
OBTW, apparently you and the other Christians didn't notice the (parens) in He declared all foods clean.
An out of context giant leap saying he declared pig, camel, buzzards and sharks clean, when the context was eating (kosher food) with unclean hands. Had no one thing to do with clean and unclean animals. Rubbish, since you are offended by the other form of rubbish.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 17, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -5 pioneer said:

This is why you are labeled with Lawless Christians.
Did Yeshua say to everyone "Go and sin no more."?
Did he intend for you to break the law. bury the law, did he nail it to his cross?
Again if you will follow Sha'ul as he imitates the Messiah, I'll shut up.

Yes, Yeshua did say go and sin no more.

However, many Christians do not consider not following the food laws to be sin. Why? Because we believe that God has made all foods clean. Therefore, we do not think that it is sin to eat certain foods. We don't consider it to be breaking the law because, again, we believe that He has made all foods clean. This is from our interpretation of Scripture. Of course if we thought that it was sin to eat certain foods, we would not do it.

Some verses that we use to show why we think that all foods are clean:
Acts 10
Romans 14
1 Timothy 4
1 Corinthians 10

We do not believe it to be sinful to eat food that had been considered unclean in the OT. The reason? Because we believe that God has now made these foods clean.

Obviously, Christians and Messianic Jews differ in interpretation of these verses. Otherwise we would all be in agreement, one way or the other. Please do not let this be a divisive issue between us. No, we do not agree about whether or not the food laws still apply. But what is important is that we both believe in Yeshua.

No, I do not think that the whole Law is done away with by the cross. I have already said this.

[John]

those scriptures are being taken out of conext and are THOUROUGHLY misunderstood.

my point was not that you havd to be jewish in blood, but to be familiar with the jewish customs. Yes the HS reveals these messages, but it reveals them to the individual in a way that THEY and the people they are pereaching to can understand.

In my mind, they are the same thing

exactly- in your mind. not in reality.

and i am not claiming a difference btwn jewish and non-jewish messianics., BOTH should follow judaism, but the gentiles can follow judaism and not become jews. they can stay a gentile.

also notice that Shauls theology of judaism is not the first time that theology was used. the only difference is that he brought the messiah in with it. so you are thoroughly wrong if you say that shauls theology was christian. it was judaisms theology, and christianity broke off of it. this christianity started off well, but it got polluted.

and again, (i am using kashrut as an example) if christians do not follow kashrut because they dont want to, than they are lawless. they are guilty of breaking the whole law because they offneded one point.

so this is why we need YHVH to spiritually circumcise us with his hand/finger (hs) (which is enabled through Yeshua) of our yetzer hara- so that we CAN follow the whole law and not become lawless.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 17, 2009 19:03:45 GMT -5 John said:

exactly- in your mind. not in reality.

and i am not claiming a difference btwn jewish and non-jewish messianics., BOTH should follow judaism, but the gentiles can follow judaism and not become jews. they can stay a gentile.

also notice that Shauls theology of judaism is not the first time that theology was used. the only difference is that he brought the messiah in with it. so you are thoroughly wrong if you say that shauls theology was christian. it was judaisms theology, and christianity broke off of it. this christianity started off well, but it got polluted.

If that is the case then Christian theology is a form of Jewish theology.

I know that Paul was Jewish and that Paul was using theology that had its basis in Judaism. Christians never claimed to invent anything new.

The problem is because Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah it became classified as another religion.

Again, Christianity does not just consist of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is Christianity defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

Because Christians use the New Testament, and Paul's writing is a big part of the NT, and it is from the Bible that Christians get their theology -- what Paul was teaching was both Jewish theology and what is today considered to be Christian theology. (In the time that the Bible was written, Christianity was not yet considered to be a separate religion by the world).

Therefore evangelical Christianity is a form of first century Judaism. I know that most of the people, if not everyone else, on this board is going to disagree with me. But that is how I see it. Evangelical Christians get their teaches from the Bible, and the Bible was written by Jews. Therefore, it is a form of first century Judaism.

[John]

the problem is - i was once evangelical... the leaders do not claim what you do.

they claim the law was done away with. they believe in replacement theology. they believe in every other heretical doctrine that we have coered so far.

so you obviously do not know what you are talking about. by saying this i mean that you do not know the position of the movement you calim to follow- and your personal position does not make this the position of the movement you claim to be under. i KNOW what the doctrine of eveangelicals is. i had a VERY evangelical pastor, i was raised in the bible belt, i even STILL use a dake bible ( www.dake.com )!

what you are explaining is YOUR position, not christianity.

and you are NOT practicing a form of 1st century judaism. that conclusion is false.

and christians do not foolow the teachings of Paul, or Yeshua! you claim to, but you dont.

NLB: do you believe Yeshua is a jew? do you belive that he was born of a virgin? do you think that he is YHVH?

(i will tie these questions in later to show you how even theology within christianity contradicts itself)

christianity is as false a religion as judaism

i dont know what you believe, but it is not christianity. not witht he things you are claiming. christianity MIGHT have believed in what you did onvce, but what it has become, in other words what it is NOW is not what you are describing.

so stob labeling yourself a christian. you do not follow christianity. the bible does not teach what christianity is teaching. you are not describing what the mainstream of christianity is teaching now.

we will leave the discussion at you can not speak for christianity- only for your own beliefs. because you obviously arent a christian (a believer in Yeshua, but not a christian) whether you label yourself that or not.

you are a messianic. whether that means you follow judaism or what, you believe in Yeshua, and that is the important thing.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 17, 2009 22:52:30 GMT -5 John said:

the problem is - i was once evangelical... the leaders do not claim what you do.

they claim the law was done away with. they believe in replacement theology. they believe in every other heretical doctrine that we have coered so far.

so you obviously do not know what you are talking about. by saying this i mean that you do not know the position of the movement you calim to follow- and your personal position does not make this the position of the movement you claim to be under. i KNOW what the doctrine of eveangelicals is. i had a VERY evangelical pastor, i was raised in the bible belt, i even STILL use dake bible ( www.dake.com )!

The term evangelical is also very broad. Today it means something completely different than what it meant ten or twenty + years ago. Some people use the old definition of it, but most people, I probably use the definition of what it has become.

Has the movement itself turned into something completely different? Probably. In certain circles I could still use the term evangelical to mean the original definition. However, I suppose it is too confusing to use the term outside of those circles. It has taken on a connotation. And you are right. The leaders that people think of when they think of "evangelicals" are not people that I would agree with.

I'm not in the Bible belt, nor have I ever lived in it. I didn't even know what the Dake Bible was until you put a link there. Words can also change meaning in the part of the country that you live in. From what you have said, I'm guessing that the term evangelical in the Bible belt has little to do with what I believe.

what you are explaining is YOUR position, not christianity.

Perhaps so. Yes, I am explaining my position. However, I'm not the only one who holds this viewpoint.

And yes, I guess I need to acknowledge that much of what is passed off as today's Christianity is at odds with what I believe. Maybe me and some other people want it to be something that it is not now. I suppose only time will tell. Will people like me eventually be defined out of Christianity? Probably some day.

NLB: do you believe Yeshua is a jew? do you belive that he was born of a virgin? do you think that he is YHVH?

Do I believe that Yeshua is a Jew? Yes. This is very clear in the Bible. He did celebrate all of the Jewish holidays, He was circumcised, He lived His life as a Jew, and others in the Bible referred to Him as Jewish. He even referred to Himself as a Jew. Logically He had to be Jewish in order to be the Messiah. Anyone who denies that He was Jewish has not read their Bible.

Do I believe that He was born of a virgin? Yes. The Bible clearly teaches this when it speaks of the birth narrative. Joseph was even going to get a divorce (even though they were only engaged) from Mary because he thought that she had been unfaithful to him.

Do I think that He is YHVH? Yes. I have laid my belief about this out in the Trinity threads. See John chapter 8 for an example.

24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

28So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

i dont know what you believe, but it is not christianity. not witht he things you are claiming. christianity MIGHT have believed in what you did onvce, but what it has become, in other words what it is NOW is not what you are describing.

so stob labeling yourself a christian. you do not follow christianity. the bible does not teach what christianity is teaching. you are not describing what the mainstream of christianity is teaching now.

we will leave the discussion at you can not speak for christianity- only for your own beliefs. because you obviously arent a christian (a believer in Yeshua, but not a christian) whether you label yourself that or not.

you are a messianic. whether that means you follow judaism or what, you believe in Yeshua, and that is the important thing.

Again, perhaps you are right. Maybe Christianity itself has become something completely different...so much so that to define myself as a Christian would give a false impression of myself to others. Maybe, like with the world "evangelical," I can only use the term in certain circles of believers.

Maybe in certain areas of the country this is more pronounced than in others.

I probably will need to give up the term Christian eventually some day, especially as things get closer and closer to the tribulation. People like me will most likely be labeled as heretics because Christianity will define us outside of the faith. As Christianity becomes more and more apostate (which the Bible DOES say will happen in the last days), then the "Christians" will become less and less tolerant of my personal beliefs.

Has it reached the point where maybe I should not refer to myself as a Christian because of what it has become? Maybe. Like I said before, I can only see what is going on with Christianity in a very tiny segment of the country. This is in no way representative of what is going on in the whole country, or in the whole world.

I do know that there is a lot that has become accepted by Christians that I do not agree with. Mainline denominations are becoming increasingly theologically liberal, as a whole. Because of this they are denying everything that I believe, and are claiming that my beliefs are not even taught in the Bible. Instead, they think that people need to be open to all sorts of spiritualities -- including shamanism and New Age teachings. They are welcoming in Yoga, Eastern meditation, Hindu and Buddhist ideas, etc. There is no gospel anymore. If this is what Christianity becomes, then I will no longer be able to use the term Christian and apply it to myself.

At the same time, there is a growing number of Christians who are also welcoming in foreign spiritual practices that have much in common with the New Age, Hinduism, and Buddhism. With these individuals, there is no gospel anymore either. They just want spiritual experiences. They do not pray in order to talk to God. Instead, they pray so that they can have a spiritual experience. They no longer are worshiping in order to give glory to God. Instead, they worship because of the spiritual high that they can experience...or so they can open themselves up to the spirit realm and have encounters with angels. No gospel here either. If this is what Christianity becomes, then no, I cannot call myself a Christian either.

If Christianity is becoming something now that I would oppose, then you are right, I cannot claim to be a Christian in any sense, and I cannot speak for what it has become.

we will leave the discussion at you can not speak for christianity- only for your own beliefs. because you obviously arent a christian (a believer in Yeshua, but not a christian) whether you label yourself that or not.

you are a messianic. whether that means you follow judaism or what, you believe in Yeshua, and that is the important thing.

Agreed. This will be my final post in this topic.

All right, I can live with that -- being a believer in Yeshua, but not a Christian. And yes, I'm a messianic in that I believe in Yeshua. And yes, that is the most important thing.

So, let us all leave this topic in peace.

By the way, your comments about suggesting that I am not a Christian got me to thinking. I think you are right.

[John]

Do I believe that Yeshua is a Jew? Yes. This is very clear in the Bible. He did celebrate all of the Jewish holidays, He was circumcised, He lived His life as a Jew, and others in the Bible referred to Him as Jewish. He even referred to Himself as a Jew. Logically He had to be Jewish in order to be the Messiah. Anyone who denies that He was Jewish has not read their Bible.

Do I believe that He was born of a virgin? Yes. The Bible clearly teaches this when it speaks of the birth narrative. Joseph was even going to get a divorce (even though they were only engaged) from Mary because he thought that she had been unfaithful to him.

Do I think that He is YHVH? Yes. I have laid my belief about this out in the Trinity threads. See John chapter 8 for an example.

so let me ask you this: was maryam impregnated with YHVH's sperm, or was Yeshua's body created like adam and then put in mary. Did mary actually have a part of Yeshua's genetics, or was she just a vessel?

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 18, 2009 9:15:26 GMT -5 John said:

Do I believe that Yeshua is a Jew? Yes. This is very clear in the Bible. He did celebrate all of the Jewish holidays, He was circumcised, He lived His life as a Jew, and others in the Bible referred to Him as Jewish. He even referred to Himself as a Jew. Logically He had to be Jewish in order to be the Messiah. Anyone who denies that He was Jewish has not read their Bible.

Do I believe that He was born of a virgin? Yes. The Bible clearly teaches this when it speaks of the birth narrative. Joseph was even going to get a divorce (even though they were only engaged) from Mary because he thought that she had been unfaithful to him.

Do I think that He is YHVH? Yes. I have laid my belief about this out in the Trinity threads. See John chapter 8 for an example.

so let me ask you this: was maryam impregnated with YHVH's sperm, or was Yeshua's body created like adam and then put in mary. Did mary actually have a part of Yeshua's genetics, or was she just a vessel?

If, by vessel you mean someone God used to accomplish His will, then that would be my answer.

God did not physically have sex with her. That idea is repulsive. God doesn't go around having sex with humans. Mormons and others have taught that God literally had sex with Mary. Furthermore, if God had sex with Mary in order to produce Yeshua, that would seem to suggest that Yeshua had no preexistence before the incarnation, and it would also deny Yeshua's deity.

He is God and can do whatever He wants. He is the Creator. The things that He does do not have to make sense to humans. Also, God is free to go against the laws of nature since He Himself is the Creator. The incarnation is a trinitarian event. I don't know exactly how God accomplished this, but what I do know is that He did. He does not have to fit in with human logic. There is no biblical evidence that God had sex with her. Rather, the incarnation just happened, and all three persons in the Trinity were involved in it.

[itiswritten]

Apr 17, 2009 18:40:13 GMT -5 Never Looking Back said:

Apr 17, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -5 pioneer said:

This is why you are labeled with Lawless Christians.
Did Yeshua say to everyone "Go and sin no more."?
Did he intend for you to break the law. bury the law, did he nail it to his cross?
Again if you will follow Sha'ul as he imitates the Messiah, I'll shut up.

Yes, Yeshua did say go and sin no more.

However, many Christians do not consider not following the food laws to be sin. Why? Because we believe that God has made all foods clean. Therefore, we do not think that it is sin to eat certain foods. We don't consider it to be breaking the law because, again, we believe that He has made all foods clean. This is from our interpretation of Scripture. Of course if we thought that it was sin to eat certain foods, we would not do it.

Some verses that we use to show why we think that all foods are clean:
Acts 10
Romans 14
1 Timothy 4
1 Corinthians 10

We do not believe it to be sinful to eat food that had been considered unclean in the OT. The reason? Because we believe that God has now made these foods clean.

Obviously, Christians and Messianic Jews differ in interpretation of these verses. Otherwise we would all be in agreement, one way or the other. Please do not let this be a divisive issue between us. No, we do not agree about whether or not the food laws still apply. But what is important is that we both believe in Yeshua.

No, I do not think that the whole Law is done away with by the cross. I have already said this.

Hello NLB,

I understand where you are coming from. At one time, I would have quoted those same scriptures. I think that it is a subject that bears delving into a bit. I would like to ask you a question that I think relates to this conversation. In 1 Peter we are told to "be holy, for I am holy." Do you believe that this is something that we should continue to aspire to, or do you believe that "be holy" is a commandment that no longer applies to the followers of Y'shua?

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 18, 2009 10:31:55 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

Hello NLB,

I understand where you are coming from. At one time, I would have quoted those same scriptures. I think that it is a subject that bears delving into a bit. I would like to ask you a question that I think relates to this conversation. In 1 Peter we are told to "be holy, for I am holy." Do you believe that this is something that we should continue to aspire to, or do you believe that "be holy" is a commandment that no longer applies to the followers of Y'shua?

Hello It Is Written,

Yes, I believe that we should aspire to be holy. However, it is God who sanctifies (makes holy). If He makes something holy, then it is holy. We can't be holy apart from Him, and neither can anything else.

[itiswritten]

Apr 18, 2009 10:50:31 GMT -5 Never Looking Back said:

Apr 18, 2009 10:31:55 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

Hello NLB,

I understand where you are coming from. At one time, I would have quoted those same scriptures. I think that it is a subject that bears delving into a bit. I would like to ask you a question that I think relates to this conversation. In 1 Peter we are told to "be holy, for I am holy." Do you believe that this is something that we should continue to aspire to, or do you believe that "be holy" is a commandment that no longer applies to the followers of Y'shua?

Hello It Is Written,

Yes, I believe that we should aspire to be holy. However, it is God who sanctifies (makes holy). If He makes something holy, then it is holy. We can't be holy apart from Him, and neither can anything else.

So, am I to understand that you believe the commandment to "be holy for I am holy" mentioned in 1 Peter is still for today?

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 18, 2009 11:35:12 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

Apr 18, 2009 10:50:31 GMT -5 Never Looking Back said:

Hello It Is Written,

Yes, I believe that we should aspire to be holy. However, it is God who sanctifies (makes holy). If He makes something holy, then it is holy. We can't be holy apart from Him, and neither can anything else.

So, am I to understand that you believe the commandment to "be holy for I am holy" mentioned in 1 Peter is still for today?

Yes.

[itiswritten]

Apr 18, 2009 11:47:07 GMT -5 Never Looking Back said:

Apr 18, 2009 11:35:12 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

So, am I to understand that you believe the commandment to "be holy for I am holy" mentioned in 1 Peter is still for today?

Yes.

Okay, me too. Since we both agree with what Peter said, lets take a look at that scripture.

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

We see in the above passage that Peter says that we should be holy; for I am holy" because it is written.

This begs the question: Where is it written? Ironically, this verse that Peter quotes is found in this weeks Torah portion. Let's take a look at the passage that Peter (Kepha) is quoting.

Leviticus 11:41-47 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. 42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. 43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. 44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

The commandment that Peter reiterates is found directly within the original context of what kinds of things that we should not eat and how exactly we are to be holy. In fact, the phrase that Peter quotes is only a portion of the verse found in verse 44.


Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.[/b]

It seems that if we are to be consistent that we would have to say that all of this scripture that Peter is quoting from is still applicable or none of it. We can take a look also at some of the scripture references that you mentioned also if you like.

We have to remember that at the time of the early followers of Y'shua that there was not a NT section of the Bible. When they speak about the scriptures, they are primarily referring to the Tanach (OT.)

[John]

the lord has never betrayed the laws of science that he made. miracles are not bending the laws of science, rather, they are using science to do something. miracles do not show the power of YHVH, there poijnt instead is to show his knoweledge. so we can understand the incarnation. Nothing about Yeshua that was revealed was revealed so that it could be a mystery. and his birth was one of those things revealed (again, not revealed so that it can be just as imbiguous as if it was never revealed at all, rather - revealed to show the solidification of the neviim's prophecies).

if you think Yeshua's body was reated, than he was NOT the messiah becuase he was 1. not jewish and 2. not the son of david OR yosef (as the messianic prophecies imply).

if yeshua was God than you are suggesting YHVH is a jew. This would be false in that YHVH created jews, so he could not be a jew himself.

if you think he was born naturally, child of Yosef and maryam, than those problems are solved (though other problems come up such as the curse of Jochaniah).

and Yeshua cannot be 100% YHVH and 100% man. This would make him a demi-god of the greeks. This derived from the greek idea of hercules, and our idea of YHVH deriving from the greek idea of zeus.. even the european blonde/brown hair, blue eyed, clear complexion Yeshua is derived from the portraits of hercules, the son of zeus (whichis what jesus means).

so the dual nature theory is now historically blown out of the water.

the kenotic theory is unreliable in that it is only stated in 1 verse, with other verses supporting the idea, but not teaching the doctrine. They can support other ideas too. The kenotic theory actually derives from the apostles view of the incarnation, not the nature of Yeshua. (although the incarnation can somewhat affect the nature, this was not the direct purpose of the verses explanation).

so now the kenotic theory is proved to be false to

Yeshua is either god or man. you have to choose one. and if you choose god, than you cannot say that he is jewish, or the messiah. if you choose man, you can say both.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 18, 2009 13:58:42 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

Apr 18, 2009 11:47:07 GMT -5 Never Looking Back said:

Yes.

Okay, me too. Since we both agree with what Peter said, lets take a look at that scripture.

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

We see in the above passage that Peter says that we should be holy; for I am holy" because it is written.

This begs the question: Where is it written? Ironically, this verse that Peter quotes is found in this weeks Torah portion. Let's take a look at the passage that Peter (Kepha) is quoting.

Leviticus 11:41-47 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. 42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. 43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. 44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

The commandment that Peter reiterates is found directly within the original context of what kinds of things that we should not eat and how exactly we are to be holy. In fact, the phrase that Peter quotes is only a portion of the verse found in verse 44.


Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[/b]

It seems that if we are to be consistent that we would have to say that all of this scripture that Peter is quoting from is still applicable or none of it. We can take a look also at some of the scripture references that you mentioned also if you like.

We have to remember that at the time of the early followers of Y'shua that there was not a NT section of the Bible. When they speak about the scriptures, they are primarily referring to the Tanach (OT.)[/quote]

While I understand your argument, and it does make sense, I disagree with the idea that Peter was referring to food when he wrote 1 Peter 1:14-16. The context of the verse does not mention food. Yes, in the OT the passage "be holy because I am holy" was connected with food laws. But it was not in Peter's letter. If his intended meaning was to be about the food laws, he would have said something about food.

Also, Peter wrote that after Acts 10 took place. If God has made all foods clean, then He has made them clean. If God sanctifies something, then it is made clean. There are verses in the OT that talk about God being the one who makes things clean. It is He that makes things holy. What God has made clean is clean. It is no longer unclean.

Perhaps the food laws were put in place as an analogy to Jews vs. Non-Jews. It is evident from reading the Bible that most Jews considered non-Jews to be unclean. If God made a distinction between clean and unclean in regard to food, He also made that distinction between Jews and non-Jews. Because of what Yeshua did, He made it possible for non-Jews to be clean. Like other things, sanctification is a trinitarian thing -- it involves all three persons. If God made non-Jews clean, then the analogy to food is rendered meaningless. God seems to connect the sanctification of non-Jews with the sanctification of all foods in Acts 10. God said not to call unclean what He has made clean. It is important to remember that God is the one who makes things clean. If before they were unclean, now they are clean. The reason? Because God has made it so.

And just as was said in one of the other passages I quoted, believers should not make food a criteria to judge others by. People who eat all foods do not have a right to judge those who abstain from certain foods. In the same way, a person who abstains from certain foods has no right to judge someone who eats all foods. The person who abstains from certain foods does so for the glory of God. The person who eats all foods does so for the glory of God. There is no problem as long as it is in faith that a person either abstains from certain foods or does not abstain from certain foods. (My paraphrase according to my understanding of what Paul was saying). If we give thanks to God for the food that we receive, then the food has been blessed.

If, out of your own faith, you decide to abstain from eating the foods that were unclean in the OT, then you are abstaining from these foods for the glory of God. That is awesome. I would not ask you to eat things that you felt were unclean. You are not eating these things because of your faith. You feel it is important to abstain from them. You have Scriptural reason to abstain. To you it would be a sin to eat these foods.

Because I believe that all things have been made holy by God, I do not feel that I have to follow the food laws. I believe by faith that God has made all foods clean. I do not think it is sin to eat these foods.

Even though various house churches did not have a copy of all the letters in the NT, many of them would have had a copy of some of the letters...or at least parts of the letters. Many of the letters in the NT were considered to be Scripture by believers of that time. Peter made a reference to Paul's letters being Scripture.

Yes, the OT would have definitely been considered Scripture.

Apr 18, 2009 14:07:21 GMT -5 John said:

if you think Yeshua's body was reated, than he was NOT the messiah becuase he was 1. not jewish and 2. not the son of david OR yosef (as the messianic prophecies imply).

How would the virgin birth make Yeshua not a Jew? He was raised as a Jew, and He is clearly portrayed as a Jew in Scripture. He considered Himself to be Jewish, and others also considered Him to be Jewish. His parents were Jews. He lived among Jews. He participated in Jewish life. In order to be the Messiah He had to be Jewish. Yeshua says as much in John chapter 4.

How does the virgin birth make Him not the son of David or Joseph? Joseph clearly raised Yeshua as his son. Are you saying that He couldn't be Joseph's son because He would not have his DNA? How do you know He wouldn't have His DNA. If God is the Creator, then He knew what Joseph's DNA was. Yeshua could have DNA that matched his because of the fact that He knew Joseph's DNA. He could have made the human body of Yeshua have the same DNA through the virgin birth. This is a possibility. This doesn't mean that this is what happened. Regardless, where does it say in Scripture that the Messiah has to have the actual DNA that is traced back to David? Yes, obviously it was believed that He would have to be the son of David....but what does that mean? Does that mean He has to have matching DNA? Not necessarily. In our society today, a person does not have to be a biological parent in order to have another person as their son. Adoption legally makes it possible for a person to have a son who is not biologically related to them. They raise them as if they are their own son.

Yeshua Himself seemed to solve this by quoting Psalm 110. Yeshua asked how the Messiah could be considered David's son if David addressed Him as "my Lord." It has been pointed out by biblical scholars that in the Jewish culture the ancestor is always considered to be higher than the descendant. This is not so with the Messiah. It was the ancestor (David) who addressed his descendant as Lord. It seems to be this logic that Yeshua was using when He quoted Psalm 110. It seems strange that the ancestor would refer to his descendant as "my Lord." This would make the descendant higher than the ancestor. This suggests that there is something superior about the Messiah. He is higher than even David. David recognized this. Yeshua seems to be suggesting that the Messiah has something more than just a human nature...an affirmation of the Messiah's deity. This would be Yeshua's own argument for the Messiah's deity.

if yeshua was God than you are suggesting YHVH is a jew. This would be false in that YHVH created jews, so he could not be a jew himself.

Yes, YHVH created the Jews. However, Yeshua became human. This was an act of humility. He had to become human in order to save us humans from sin. This was the only way for us to be saved. Because the Jews were YHVH's own people, and because they were the ones that He had revealed His truth to, YHVH Himself had to become Jewish. The Messiah had to be Jewish. He had to be sinless, and He had to live His life perfectly. He could not have done so outside of Judaism. Plus, YHVH had made a promise to the Jews, and it was to them that Yeshua came first. They were His chosen people. If YHVH was to become human, don't you think He would have to be Jewish? He could not have not been Jewish and still saved us. Yeshua says that the Messiah has to be Jewish in John chapter 4 when He is talking to the woman at the well. "Salvation is from the Jews." This means that the Messiah is Jewish.

It was God's intent ever since the fall to become human. I believe that He created the Jewish people for the very purpose of revealing Himself to a group of people in which He could accomplish the incarnation in. He had to set aside some people so that the Messiah could come and redeem people. Since it was by God's design that the incarnation happened, then He made it possible for Himself to be Jewish and come from those that He had set aside as His own.

and Yeshua cannot be 100% YHVH and 100% man. This would make him a demi-god of the greeks. This derived from the greek idea of hercules, and our idea of YHVH deriving from the greek idea of zeus.. even the european blonde/brown hair, blue eyed, clear complexion Yeshua is derived from the portraits of hercules, the son of zeus (whichis what jesus means).

The only way for Yeshua NOT to be a demi god is if He is 100% YHVH. Yeshua is not just partially God. That's what it means for Him to be fully God. It means for Him to be 100% YHVH.

He has to be 100% human because the Messiah was also fully human. He had to be fully human so that He could live as a human, so He could be in a position to take our place, and so He could live a perfect life. Also, He had to be human so that He could die. He had to be human in order to be the Messiah.

Thus, the conclusion is that Yeshua has two natures -- a human nature and a divine nature, and that He is fully (100%) both of those natures. He IS YHVH, but at the same time He IS human.

Don't fall for the zeus theory rubbish. Yes, that's right, I'm calling it rubbish. The name Jesus does NOT mean zeus. Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua. There were others in Jesus' day who were named Jesus. Therefore, it cannot come from zeus. To prove it, I was talking online to a guy from Israel. He did not know anything about Jesus. I did not even realize he was from Israel or was Jewish when I started talking to him. I was getting people's random opinions of 2 Peter 1:1 because of a debate I was having with a Jehovah's Witness regarding that verse. I was trying to get a poll from random people on an instant messenger program about the grammar in 2 Peter 1:1. I searched for anyone who specialized in English grammar. This man from Israel came up. So I asked him the question. He responded, and we got to talking. We talked about Jesus some, then we talked about other things. He asked me for a picture. I sent him several pictures. I told him the names of some of my friends in the pictures. One of them was named Josh. There was a picture that had the words "The name Jesus in all the languages of the world" on it. It was simply in the background. He saw it, and the Holy Spirit must have led him to look up what "Jesus" meant in Hebrew. I didn't say anything about it to him. He actually excitedly sent me a message about its meaning in Hebrew. He told me that it was the same name as my friend Josh, and told me what it meant in Hebrew.

The Bible itself confirms what this Jewish man discovered --

Matthew 1:21
21"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

I have a note in my study Bible at Matthew 1:21. The note says this (and I know that the study notes are not Scripture), "Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means "The LORD saves." This is exactly what the Jewish man said.

If Yeshua is not YHVH, how do you solve this in Zechariah 12:10?
10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn

In this passage YHVH says that they will look upon "Me" whom they have pierced. Then the pronoun changes to Him when YHVH says, "they will mourn for Him." This suggests there are two persons who are both YHVH. The one who is pierced is YHVH, but then YHVH addresses the one whom is pierced as "Him."

[pioneer]

NLB, it seems to me you are ignoring all the biblical references where God does not change, Yeshua is the same yesterday, today and forever. If Y H V H made the pig clean, and told you to eat pig, there was with out a doubt a change!

"since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)"
Ignore the (parens) and the context is not anything to do with making pigs clean, but eating with ritually unwashed hands.

"And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common.""
Peter doesn't at this time understand what he has heard for the HS, but in the explanation below he has figured it out. Nowhere in Torah does it say a Gentile is unclean. He may be ritually unclean because he hasn't washed and has eaten unkosher foods, touched a dead body, touched a woman who is flowing and a myriad of other reasons, but not because God has declared them unclean, but on the other hand, Peter did know that Y H V H had declare all the things on the sheet to be unclean and he did not at that time or any other time partake of unclean animals.

"and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

"What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
Peter has rightly chosen not to break the kosher law, since it is nowhere written for him to do so, like I have said a vision may be heartburn, a feeling needs to be checked out, if it is not in scripture it is not of God.
Rev.22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
If this is not in the Holy Bible, then you may be right!
But it is in the bible.
So enjoy your trief and enjoy the outer darkness, you have chosen.

Shalom

If Yeshua is not YHVH, how do you solve this in Zechariah 12:10?
10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn

In this passage YHVH says that they will look upon "Me" whom they have pierced. Then the pronoun changes to Him when YHVH says, "they will mourn for Him." This suggests there are two persons who are both YHVH. The one who is pierced is YHVH, but then YHVH addresses the one whom is pierced as "Him."

How do you resolve this; Nu 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?
Your theology makes him lie.
It makes everything Yeshua says and does into a deception.
When He says in your theology "I came because I am the only one who can do what I asked those stiffnecked Jews to do."
Your theology says it is an impossible task to keep the commandments unless you are God.
I would call a god who would tell me to keep the commandments and I will give you these blessings, but if you don't I will curse you with these curses.
With no chance to keep the commandments and a sure lock on the curses, an unfair and unjust god!
FYI; Y H V H is not unfair nor unjust and will as it is written 26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Todah rabah,
Shalom u'vrachot

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 18, 2009 23:22:47 GMT -5 pioneer said:

How do you resolve this; Nu 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?
Your theology makes him lie.
It makes everything Yeshua says and does into a deception.
When He says in your theology "I came because I am the only one who can do what I asked those stiffnecked Jews to do."
Your theology says it is an impossible task to keep the commandments unless you are God.
I would call a god who would tell me to keep the commandments and I will give you these blessings, but if you don't I will curse you with these curses.
With no chance to keep the commandments and a sure lock on the curses, an unfair and unjust god!
FYI; Y H V H is not unfair nor unjust and will as it is written 26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Todah rabah,
Shalom u'vrachot

If Numbers 23:18 is read in its context, the meaning that I get when I read it is that God is comparing himself to sinful humans. Humans lie and humans sin. God is not like us humans in that He does not lie and He does not sin. The whole point of Numbers 23 seems to be declaring that God can be trusted because He is God. This does nothing to argue against Yeshua's deity. Yeshua lived a sinless life.

The reason that NO ONE (neither Jews nor non-Jews) can follow the commandments perfectly and be sinless is because we ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory. It all goes back to the question of whether or not a person believes in original sin. I believe in it, so I do not think it is possible for anyone to be sinless except for Yeshua. It's because no one can live up to the Law completely (several people on here have said that if you sin at just one point of the Law you have broken the entire Law) that Yeshua had to come to pay for our sins. Yes, some people have more success at following God's laws than others. But the point is that all have sinned. Do you know anyone in your life that has not sinned at some point in their life? Have you lived a perfect, sinless life? God's standards are way higher than any human can achieve because of the fall. Yet Yeshua was able to do it because He had no sin.

I'm not saying that a person cannot keep any of the commandments, but I am saying that it is impossible for a person to live their entire life up to God's standards because we all have inherited the sinful nature.

The fact that Yeshua came and died on the cross for us is an example of how just God is. The punishment that we deserved fell on Him, and He took it all. He did live up to the high standards of the Law and because He was able to do so, He was in a position to redeem us who cannot live up to God's standard.

If it were possible for humans to live up to God's standards, then Yeshua wasted His time here. He came for nothing because He just did what any other person could have done.

He redeems both Israel and non-Jews through Yeshua. Yes, Israel is still dear to His heart, and He is not done with Israel. There will be a time when they too will come to the Messiah. I'm not God so I do not know how He judges Jews who do not trust in Yeshua. That is something that is between them and God. He is more than capable of judging them with perfect justice. I'm not worried about that.

Isaiah 40:3
3A voice is calling,
"Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

Compare Isaiah 40:3 with the verses from the Gospels that talk about that verse being applied to John the Baptist to prepare the way for Yeshua. The one that John the Baptist prepared the way or was called both YHVH (LORD) and God. This would make Yeshua YHVH.

I think I've exhausted this topic as well as my welcome one these boards. I thank you all for your time and discussion. I have learned a lot from talking with all of you. I wish you all well.

[John]

just because humans are ABLE to sin and such does not mean that we HAVE TO. we have sinned, but that does not mean we are bound to a life of sin for the rest of our life. this is what Yeshua was for. again, i am going to refer to my circumcision doctrine.

When Ha'adam sinned, he formed a natural Yetzer hara (evil inclination ) within us (this is NOT the same as origianl sin). When we read a commandment, that commandment is against us because of our sinful nature, not because of the commandment. (its a case of 'if you want to see someone walk on your grass, put a sign up that says dont walk on the grass').

HOWEVER, when we accept Yeshua, we are immersed in him spiritually, than we provlaim this has happened through mikveh. After we are immersed in him spiritually, (and it is done in his name) the HS comes into us at the call of his name.

Than, YHVH uses his finger (the HS, the finger of YHVH) to cirumcise the foreskin of our nature- the yetzer hara. This nature is taken away from us. So know if we sin, we have no excuse. We are able to live a sinless life from then on.

i am tired of repeating myself, so i am going to copy and paste this if i have to say this again.