Messianic Judaism

[Hugh McBryde]

Just to keep up with "where I was coming from."

I'm not willing to blindly accept the claims of a translator. I give them weight, but that is all. A good deal of the reason I support the same form of Biblical Marriage that you do, is because I do not blindly follow guides, that may be, well, blind. Were I simply to follow around my theological 'betters' and take their word for it, I would not be here."

I understand the "blurring" that comes with translation or I would not have said this. What I do not accept is that so much blurring has occurred that meaning is lost to the degree that our translations are in what I would call "consequential" error.

I'm trying also to paint in broad strokes so as not to initiate rabbit trail discussions. Translations are never exact because of the philosophy of language that Mark correctly points out. This has been known for a long time though. The discipline or area of study known as "Philology" predates computer science by a very long time. Prominent theologian and author CS Lewis was a "Philologist."

The point? I come down on the side that says blurred vision is not wrong vision. The passage 1st Corinthians 7:2 uses two different Greek words for "our" that translates to one English word and creates the impression of parallel meaning but also have the thin though real possibility of different use of a broad English term. Monogamy as marriage advocates often cite this passage to claim the superficial and apparent parallel in English as proof of a monogamy preference or intent by the LORD and by Paul. The possibility of the meaning in the Greek exists, but is not obvious to the reader in English. The meaning of the Greek is plain, the passage is not constructed in parallel.

(T)his is a disturbing claim that the most authoritative texts we have, were altered improperly, and unreliable. What we have in the scriptures available to us, are exactly the revelation of God that we were meant to have. They contain no lies. "

Unfortunately Mark does seem to be making this claim. My position is that in the original texts, we have all the scripture in perfect inspiration that we were meant to have. I did not make a claim that the translations were similarly inspired, but I do think they are reliable.

What Mark is claiming (maybe drifting towards unknowingly) is that the Greek Gospels we have are flawed translations and Mark is pretty sure (based on concurrence with other translators or scholars) of what was ORIGINALLY written in another language and then translated to Greek.

The LORD has not abandoned us in this way. The New Testament Greek texts ARE reliable and ARE the inspired word of God. If they are not the originals, then I would assert that they were written alongside the originals by the authors that wrote the originals. Maybe Matthew was authored in Hebrew but I'd say it was authored in Greek or at least by the same author that wrote it in Hebrew or Aramaic. That's as far as I am willing to go. We're not waiting to find an original Hebrew or Aramaic testament to clear up the errors of translation that have crept in. I find the Peshite Aramaic Gospels fascinating because they provide a contemporary lens into the understanding of the people of that time period into the meaning of those Gospels. They are a tool. They are not the Holy Grail of Biblical meaning.

We have a Greek New Testament because (most likely) the Gospels were ONLY written ORIGINALLY in Greek. Likewise the letters. It pertains to this discussion because we are as Gentile Believers, Christians, because the Bible Tells Me So. Mark is wrong to assert that we were meant to hear some other description of our faith that has been lost (perhaps temporarily) to the sands of time. He is wrong to assert that he can figure out what we were supposed to have heard, that we didn't hear, because we're going to discover someday a Hebrew or Aramaic version of 1st Kefa. He is wrong to assert that he is here to tell us what we don't know, but he knows, because he's figured by reading the Greek what the Hebrew (or Aramaic) would have said, which he can then more properly translate to English and explain it to us.

We are CHRISTIANS. It is a perfectly good word. In Greek we were called "khrē-stē-ä-no's" (Χριστός), in Aramaic it was translated from the Greek epithet to "Kristyane." In Latin it was "Christiani." The author of 1st Peter (Kefa) used the word Χριστός. It is what we, the gentile believers of "that way" (a faith colored most strongly by the version of Judaism practiced by Pharisees) are. Christians. We are not Messianic Jews or "Messianics" as opposed to Christians.

 

[Anonymous]

We are CHRISTIANS. It is a perfectly good word. In Greek we were called "khrē-stē-ä-no's" (Χριστός), in Aramaic it was translated from the Greek epithet to "Kristyane." In Latin it was "Christiani." The author of 1st Peter (Kefa) used the word Χριστός. It is what we, the gentile believers of "that way" (a faith colored most strongly by the version of Judaism practiced by Pharisees) are. Christians. We are not Messianic Jews or "Messianics" as opposed to Christians.

AMEN !
I am tired of all the "Christian" bashing. I hear it all the time, mostly from other "Christians", which is sad. "Christian" means "Christ Like". I am proud and grateful that I am a CHRISTIAN !
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[mrscottyl]

I didn’t say when our Lord taught in Aramaic he was unintelligible. Aramaic was the Jews language at this time, as well as Greek.

Greek was the language of the Hellenistic Jews and not of the Hebrew Jews, who spoke daily in Aramaic but would not have spoken it when reading or discussing Scripture, for that would have been done in Hebrew alone. And we know from Scripture that the Apostles were poor ignorant men, so they would not have been schooled in Greek. And Paul had to deal extensively with the Greek philosophy of Gnosis, which was rampant through the Hellenistic Jews, which caused serious errors, of which those who went to the School of Philo in Alexandria, who made many copies of Scripture, wrote into those copies because they believed in seeing everything through Aristotle's and Plato's view of gnosis and not through Scripture. I actually cover this and more about the problems with the modern translations as well as with those doing the translating in my book "What Is The Truth?" [url=http://stores.lulu.com/mrscottyl]http://stores.lulu.com/mrscottyl[/url]

Scott

 

[mrscottyl]

I am tired of all the "Christian" bashing. I hear it all the time, mostly from other "Christians", which is sad. "Christian" means "Christ Like". I am proud and grateful that I am a CHRISTIAN !

The problem is that I am quite comfortable being called a disciple of Jesus or Yahushua while most - certainly not all - Christians look down on me when I do not use the term Christian. Actually, it was in 98 AD that the Bishop of Antioch declared that all believers must be called Christian. For many - certainly not all - Christians, the term Messianic is used as a slur, where I could also point out that Christian can also be traced back to the Swiss-French word cretian, where we get our English word cretin. If a person wishes to be called a Christian, that is their prerogative. I would much rather here that than someone use a denominational term like Baptist or Four Square because all those do is put walls up causing divisions which are schisms. It is Satan who seeks to divide and conquer, but we are to have the unity of the Spirit, and not to segregate into different factions simply because we do not like someone or their teachings or think that we are better than they are. So to let everyone know, I am proud to be a Disciple of the Word!

Scott

 

[Hugh McBryde]

As stated before, I run into problems when people who would have been correctly called Christian, refuse the term. It's compounded when those same people insist others abandon the name Christian in favor of something else. I have no problem at all with Jewish believers refusing the name "Christian" in favor of Messianic.

What we did here, was delve into some serious doctrinal error to justify the abandonment of a name (granted it was given as an insult) that most of us should be proud of.

 

[Anonymous]

Issue 1. The name Christian has been historically utilized to identify those who were followers of "that or the way". According to Scripture, believers were first called by that name (Christian) in Antioch, long before 98 A.D. It is, as Hugh pointed out, the same word in Greek and aramaic. As he also pointed out, this was an insult, identifying those believers with the Christ they preached. In my not so humble opinion, there is HONOR in being identified with the Christ that died for me. Forget all the other names, purposes and whatever reasons we have for finding something new or different and get on board with our brethren down through the ages who have lived and died for the blessing of being called a "Christian". Check our motives for being different!!!!

Issue 2. I am one of those who believe that the Textus Receptus is the most accurate and trusted body of manuscripts available to us. It is not inspired, but is a copy of the inspired text. After being a student of scripture for 46 years, I might be considered a Bible scholar, but I make no such claims. I do not have credientials beyond a Batchelor of Religious Education degree. However, after serving my Lord for more than 42 years as a pastor, I have learned one major lesson; Distrust scholarship and trust God's Holy Spirit and His Word. More than 30 years ago, while doing a personal study through I Corinthians, I came to chapter 13 and suddenly nothing made sense. I did what most of us would do, I went to my library and brought 2 commentaries and 3 translations to my desk. Imagine my frustration when none of the 5 references agreed. I have subsequently found that even the greatest commentators usually skip over the scriptures that I had difficulty with. The HS reminded me, on that day, of the promise of Jesus, where He said that the HS would teach us His Word. I prayed, claimed the promise, returned to my Bible and began at the first verse, when I got to the troubled spot God turned on the light in my understanding. I am currently convicted of my seemed dependency on Strong's Lexicon. I fear many of us have venerated scholarship, books and commentators and seriously neglected the Holy Spirit's ministry as we compare scripture with scripture. One point a couple of the Bro.'s have mentioned here in passing is seriously important. That point is that God HAS PRESERVED for us His Word and He will give us the understanding [providing we are willing to sit at His feet, listen and learn]. I find it very hard to believe that our Lord, in His infinite wisdom would leave in our hands, the great task of determining what He REALLY meant. I speak for all of us, we are not that smart, and neither were those we all like to quote. If you smoke, put that in your pipe and puff on it for awhile before responding.

 

[Corey]

I am in agreement with pastor John, preservation of Gods word is taught as strongly as inspiration of Gods word.

 

[cnystrom]

That point is that God HAS PRESERVED for us His Word and He will give us the understanding [providing we are willing to sit at His feet, listen and learn]. I find it very hard to believe that our Lord, in His infinite wisdom would leave in our hands, the great task of determining what He REALLY meant.

Amen! You hit the nail on the head as usual.

Chris

 

[withfresheyes]

As a woman, I consider it a priviledge and honor to cheer on my brethern in Christ. I will not even attempt to respond to this thread, but I will say, I do read every reply and I count myself Blessed by Him, in that He and He alone made woman to be the one to cheer the loudest when God speaks His truths through men who have counted the cost! I consider it an Honor, that even though it is sometimes hard to be a woman, I am so very Thankful He made me just as He intended. Far from where I want to be yet so very Grateful I am not where I once was. I love my brethern in Christ. Cheering the loudest!!!

 

[mrscottyl]

As stated before, I run into problems when people who would have been correctly called Christian, refuse the term. It's compounded when those same people insist others abandon the name Christian in favor of something else. I have no problem at all with Jewish believers refusing the name "Christian" in favor of Messianic.

What we did here, was delve into some serious doctrinal error to justify the abandonment of a name (granted it was given as an insult) that most of us should be proud of.

I never said that no one could call me Christian. However, if you will allow me to offer up one caveat, I will say that 95% + of what people call Christian now days is not even found in Scripture. The vast majority of things being taught in the pulpits of today are not found anywhere in Scripture, but are found in the theological doctrines created by men for men. Thus if that is a Christian, then I am not one, for I do not hold to any doctrines of men, but only what is found in Scripture. Now I do know that there are those here, even some who have posted on this thread, who have accused me of not being a Christian, because I do not hold to their standards and to their teachings. Call me whatever you want, even call me insults if that makes you happy, for as I have said before, I go by Scripture, and I do not try to please men, and if that does not please you, then take it up with my Savior. I do my best to live my life in accordance with Scripture, knowing that as I am still in this fleshly body, I will make mistakes. I am not perfect, and far from it, and further am the least esteemed of anyone here. I know that I am a lightening rod for some here, and so I choose not to post too much because I try not to offend as somehow I do albeit unintentionally. When someone tells me to trust an non inspired person who is telling me something totally contrary to Scripture, although they claim to have Scriptural or historical proof as to what they claiming, I know not to trust in the flesh but to trust in the Holy Spirit. If that means that people will desert me because I do not tow their line, then so be it. I would rather be lonely on this earth and be with my Savior for eternity than be popular with many friends telling me how good I am on this earth and spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Now as I have said, I am of Jewish descent, and as I also know that the Greek word for the Hebrew word Mashiac is Christos, and knowing that Mashiac is translated Messiah, then I do not understand why people are so opposed to be a follower of/believer in the Messiah, for if you are a Christian, it automatically makes you Messianic.

Scott

 

[mrscottyl]

The name Christian has been historically utilized to identify those who were followers of "that or the way". According to Scripture, believers were first called by that name (Christian) in Antioch, long before 98 A.D. It is, as Hugh pointed out, the same word in Greek and aramaic. As he also pointed out, this was an insult, identifying those believers with the Christ they preached.

You see, we do not know exactly when the book of Acts was written. It may have been around 61 CE/AD or it could have been later. We do not know exactly when Luke even died. To say for certain that Christian was being used in Antioch long before 98 CE/AD is to assume that what theologians and those quoting church tradition are saying is correct, and non of that is Scriptural. Paul referred to people already apostatizing in the first century, and a side note thrown in by Luke in Acts chapter 11 does not mean that way back in the early or mid first century this was a common term. Even the Aramaic that we have comes from the second to third centuries, of which both are after 98 AD/CE, and thus a change may have taken place in order to follow the Bishop of Antioch's decree. That is pure supposition on my part, just as much as saying that the people were called Christian long before 98 CE/AD is supposition, for we have nothing in Scripture to back either of that up. And then again, were those using the terms Christian Hellenistic or Hebrew? And those following the Bishop of Antioch's decree and thus copying Scripture, were they Hellenistic or Hebrew? Before we all leap to conclusions, we should ask ourselves these important questions.

Scott

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The simple fact Scott is that the word given as a name for believers in Antoich sounds more like "Christian" than "Messianic." The confusion comes when a certain group of believers who continue to be "Jewish" but accept that Messiah has come. Christians ARE admonished NOT to "Judaize" themselves or place themselves under the law nullifying grace.

This seems to be where the distinction is. Did I come to Jesus as a member of the nation of Israel, who obey a contract with God as "Perpetual," or as a member of the gentiles who were not under the Law of Moses.

 

[mrscottyl]

The simple fact Scott is that the word given as a name for believers in Antoich sounds more like "Christian" than "Messianic." The confusion comes when a certain group of believers who continue to be "Jewish" but accept that Messiah has come. Christians ARE admonished NOT to "Judaize" themselves or place themselves under the law nullifying grace.

This seems to be where the distinction is. Did I come to Jesus as a member of the nation of Israel, who obey a contract with God as "Perpetual," or as a member of the gentiles who were not under the Law of Moses.

Or were you, as a gentile, grafted into the same vine as the Jews who were obedient to the Torah? Were you not placed in same place that a disobedient Jew once grew? And were you not told that if you be puffed up as a gentile thinking you are better than the Jews that you could be just as easily and quickly cut out of the tree you were grafted into? All of this comes from Romans 11.

And those doing the Judaizing, were they Hellenistic Jews that added Gnosis to Scripture or were they Hebrew Jews? And is Colossians and galatians speaking of the problem of the Hellenistic Jewish Gnosis instad of the typical gentile Christian theology that has been taught since at least the fourth century CE/AD that it was the Pharisaical Hebrew Judaism? And who do the modern translations use as their base text since 1880? None other than the Hellenistic Jewish School of Philo Alexandrian texts.

I know that there are those here on this list that sit in judgment of me because of what I believe and teach. Just as your church sat in judgment of you, Hugh, for what you believe and teach. If it was wrong for them to do that to you, why is it alright for some on this group to do that to me for what I believe? Why would others refuse to have anything to do with my all because of what I believe when they say it is wrong for you to be done the same way by people who call themselves Christians? I also know that there are people on this group that hold grudges against me and go, thinking they are behind my back and say things bad about me. But yet, when we did the interview last week, I did not try to push my beliefs off on you, nor did I try to force you to agree to a certain way of thinking.

I understand that I am the popular whipping boy for many who call themselves Christians, simply because I do not hold sacred the theological beliefs that by modern definition is Christianity., but I accept being called Christian, Messianic, or just a Disciple of the Word, for all those should mean the same thing, and to me they do. The problem most people have with me is that I refuse to live in the box that man has created to box and lump people together on. If that is being a Pharisee, then so be it. Even Paul, after his conversion, still called himself a Pharisee, so I if I am a Pharisee and am to be shunned by Christians, then I am in good company with Paul. Paul taught against divisions and different names, as do I. Paul taught against Hellenistic Gnosis, of which I do too. Paul was deserted by others, just as I have been. So if I am what you have accused me of, I simply like Paul.

Scott

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Scott,

Paul didn't ask for the gentiles to circumcize themselves or obey dietary laws but was an observant Jew being orderly and keeping the Law. He also taught other Jews to do the same, but insisted the Gentiles not do that.

The keeping of the law is not part of being a branch on the vine for me. From what you are saying, it should be for you.

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

Paul didn't ask for the gentiles to circumcize themselves or obey dietary laws but was an observant Jew being orderly and keeping the Law. He also taught other Jews to do the same, but insisted the Gentiles not do that.
The keeping of the law is not part of being a branch on the vine for me. From what you are saying, it should be for you.

but insisted the Gentiles not do that.

- I think that is a bit too strong on the negative. It seems to me that Paul insisted that no one force or urge a Gentile to take on the keeping of the Laws that a Jew is required to do, but not that a gentile could not do so of their own if they are led to by the Spirit.



In general I would identify myself as christian, but if the conversation is such that more detailed explanation of beliefs is allowable and thus making it possible to witness I will usually say "I am a follower of The Way". It opens the conversation to allow me to share my faith and witness to the individual.
Out here when I live there are 4 main "religious" types I come across: a small group are self-proclaimed athiests, too many church-haters (many have had heart-breaking experiences with 'christians'), the Native American Stomp attendees (who may or may not accept Christ as savior), and then there are the multitude of christians. The issue with the christians here are that some are unrepentent fornicators (or pick another sin) and think that God will understand because it is 21st century and times have changed, and some claim they have NEVER sinned in their entire life and hate to be with other 'sinners'. Yet the ones that truely should have the prize for being mislabeled are the ones that call themselves christians, yet do not believe in god- yes thats right. They say they are christians, but also say that god isn't real. :?
So when you have that as the modern day interpertation of what "christian" means today, it is understandable that believers who are dedicated to the Lord want to label themselves in a way that will seperate them from the world's view of 'christian'.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Paul rather passionately insisted that Gentile converts to the faith NOT place themselves under the contract of the Law insisting that to do so nullified Grace, at least figuratively. Those among the Jewish believers who wanted to do this, Paul suggested they emasculate themselves, which would have kept them out of the temple.

I'm not belittling in any way Messianic Faith, but it is not for me. The Law WILL pass away, and when it does, no one will observe it.

 

[welltan]

This is a modified version of what I posted elsewhere on Messianic ideas.

There is nothing wrong with keeping parts of the Law for personal behavior and health. However burdening other Christians with the Law in demanding that it be kept is in opposition to Christ fulfilling the Law. If Christ fulfilled then we do not have to nor do other Christians. What part of the word "finished" that Christ spoke on the Cross do we not understand? What did he finish? He finished nothing for those that insist on the Law being kept. Insisting on the Law is against Christ's mission and life and death and resurrection. He walked the dusty streets of Jerusalem and surrounding area as a perfect witness of his own fulfillment and establishment of the Law so that He might be the perfect sacrifice. Of course Christ did not do away with the Law. He completed it and his approach to the Law is not the same as our approach to the Law unless we sieze it back for ourselves after Christ's ownership of the finished work. Why would Christians walk away from the Cross and try to attain perfection in the Law rather than perfection through Christ and Christ's blood. If someone is Torah observant then that is one thing and a personal choice, but not a burden to lay on other Christians, and actually not a burden to place on oneself either. The question is whether the Law can be kept perfectly. I think not, but if one is optimisticly confident that they could or are keeping the Law then they of course become perfect and have no need for Christ. Christ's perfection qualified him as the redeemer. However, one keeping the Law perfectly has no need of Christ. If this is not the case then one should admit that they are not keeping the Law perfectly and share this admission to all those they infer should keep the Law also.
The Law includes animal sacrifice. Torah keepers without animal sacrifice are not Torah keepers but partial Torah keepers or are simply Torah observant in certain areas. Torah keepers with animal sacrifice (and I hope there are none here) mix or would mix the blood of animals with the blood of Christ on the cross (God forbid!) and this is against Christ and more akin to Judaizers at the least. And at the most, the idea of mixing the blood of Christ with the blood of animals makes me shudder and should make one look to Heaven in fear of the God who said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" Where in the O.T. did he say this is my beloved goat before a sacrifice. Christians can be Christ-like but they can not be Christ. (Christ was perfection and in all ways found without sin) A Christian without Christ is not a Christian. What should happen then? Should Christ return again and seeing that the Law is again being attempted with failure again, that Christ again be sacrificed? No, if Christ's sacrifice is walked away (or fallen away) from and many fallen back into their own sin and attempt to purify themselves, then there remains no more perfect sacrifice which was Christ and Christ's sacrifice is of no avail. Now that is scary to me. I like being covered by Christ's blood and Christ's holiness extended to me. If Christ and the Father are one then anyone trying to be their own Christ (their own perfection) is attempting to become one with the Father without Christ.
So is Christ really not abandoned and his blood shed truely your confidence for eternity? Then witness your heart for the gospel and take joy that you have been bought by Christ's sacrifice. What you do on your own free time is your own business after that. My question is where did you get the free time?

 

[Mark C]

Mark I have had the privilege of learning under these scholars and have managed to become one myself. The claim you make here I would say we do not hold. If you look at the claims of Matthew being written in Hebrew you can easily find the source and motivation for the claim.

Well, excuse me for choosing not to worship at the altar of such Scholarship.

I see "scholars" in the "press" and "government" proclaim haughtily what the Constitution says, and how to justify "gun control", "Roe v Wade", "hate crimes", and the Federal Reserve in spite of the plain text. But I've read history, and both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, understand English, and can tell they're simply "full of it". Similar "scholars" teach that man evolved from slime and there can be no Creator. Still others teach that ALL of the Bible is mere myth and no historic "Jesus" ever existed. They're "scholars" because they are tenured at universities, peer-review each others self-serving papers, and suckle at the public trough.

In other words, I'm still not buyin' it.

And I've had my fill of "scholars" who teach that God changed His mind, did away with His own "Law", and didn't really mean what He Wrote about marriage, either -- since the vast majority seem to be able to find "Monogamy Only" in some Textus I've never seen. Most can lecture at length about the Greek lexicon but few seem to have a clue what "I change not" means. I will admit it: the very Bible best teachers from whom I have learned Scripture either don't have a degree from a fine "Semitary" school or (like me, and others of whom Yeremeyahu wrote) have come at admit that much of what we learned was "lies" and "things wherein there is no profit".

As for, "the claims of Matthew being written in Hebrew you can easily find the source and motivation for the claim."

You're darn right I can. I know at least three such sources personally, and have cited some of their work on this site. All of them are experts in "Biblical" Hebrew, "paleo" Hebrew, and Greek, and have inspected and translated many of the texts themselves. All three have published on this very subject, and not a one bases their understanding on your Catholic or Orthodox "source and motivation claim".

Twenty-eight known copies (last count I have seen) of what is popularly called "Shem Tov's Matthew" exist in archives around the world. The fact that YHVH can preserve His Word does not mean that both man and the Adversary have not continued to try to hide or distort His Truth, or that we are not admonished repeatedly to "search it out" FOR OURSELVES rather than simply relying on those given titles like "rabbi", "father", or even Scholar.

Now, Aramaic and Hebrew are different languages please do not equate the two.

I said:

The very structure of the language makes it clear almost without exception to scholars that texts like Matthew and Revelation -- AT A MINIMUM -- were written originally in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Had I said that the Geneva Bible was published in English AND German, or that you could buy a copy in 1599 in English OR German, would you have accused me of "equating the two" languages? I expect better from self-described scholars. As for me, I just read search out the Scriptures for myself and eschew misleading labels.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The simplest reply remains: If the LORD had meant for us to have Hebrew Gospels to work with, we would have them. Basing names for our belief and doctrines on facts not in evidence is in the best case, proof our own arrogance. You DO NOT KNOW, what they would have said.

 

[Anonymous]

it is understandable that believers who are dedicated to the Lord want to label themselves in a way that will seperate them from the world's view of 'christian'.

The "world" has always tried to hi-jack the things of God...in an attempt to twist, dilute and redefine their meaning. This is not new. The Rainbow was taken as a symbol of the New Age Movement in the 70's and has since become the symbol of the homosexual movement today.
The term "Christian" has also been similarly hi-jacked. So what ? Do we as blood bought, saved by Grace, authentic Christians just sit by and allow this to continue ? My answer would be "no". I will no more relinquish the term "Christian" than I will give up the rainbow.
The fact that there have been grave injustices done by Christians, or people claiming to be Christians will not change simply with a change of title. Whatever we call ourselves, we are human and we will err, some egregiously. This is unfortunate but unavoidable. I have never met a perfect Christian yet.
Blessings,
Fairlight