Some day, I am going to publish a web page compiling the insults I’ve received at the hands of religious people over the years.
It is going to be a long list.
Last week I wrote a short post that, if compressed to 4 sentences, might be summarized like this:
Here is something one of our leaders said about us: [quote].
It sounds like he’s saying [ugly thing].
Am I misinterpreting?
If not, this hurts, since said leader is a longtime friend.
Since then, in about some 80+ comments, I’ve been told the following. For fun, inhale deep, try saying them all in one breath.
Fed through Random.org to ensure non-biased ordering:
- I am letting anger rule my heart.
- I am offering speculation that leads to slander.
- I was outright attacking Boaz Michael.
- I am not holding back my animalistic soul.
- I am responsible for insults being thrown.
- I don’t want to be confused by the facts.
- I am just bashing people.
- I am selfish.
- I am not following Matthew 18.
- I am voicing my bias.
- I am speaking any way I want.
- I am offering hurtful speculation.
- I am incredibly arrogant.
- I am supersessionist in regards to the Christian church.
- I am allowing my yetzer hara (evil inclination) free reign of my tongue.
- I am letting anger rule my writings.
- I am not acting like a disciple of Yeshua.
- I am not being charitable.
- I am not using my intelligence the way HaShem desires.
- I am unwilling to hear past my own subjective reading.
- I am wrong.
- I’m going to stay here no matter what, even if I’m wrong.
- I should delete my post.
- I can’t even pick up the phone and resolve this.
- I have not grown up.
- I am taking this way out of context.
- My post was shocking and embarrassing.
- I am diminishing Israel.
- I’m offended because my community is supersessionist.
- I don’t want my mind to be changed.
- I am not acting like a child of God.
- I am mischaracterizing Boaz Michael, and this is a common problem on my blog.
- I am responsible for people being hurt.
- I am self-fulfilling.
- I am choosing high blog activity over Yeshua’s rulings.
- I am an opposer of Israel.
- I should be ashamed.
- My idea of “Israel” exists only in my own mind.
- I am attacking Boaz because my feelings were hurt.
- I believe in my heart I have the right, nay, responsibility to interpret Torah as I see fit.
- My thinking is fundamentally supersessionist.
- I am not engaging in brotherhood.
- I am guilty of lashon hara (evil speech).
- I have an un-regenerated heart.
- I am leaving behind all civility.
- I am attacking Boaz Michael in public.
- I am an enemy of Israel.
- I could have handled this better.
- I am preaching another gospel.
- I am engaging in chinat sinam (baseless hatred).
- I have not learned anything from Boaz Michael’s humility.
- I am stooping to a level of non-objectiveness.
- My post is simply an attack.
- I am typing cute and witty insults.
- I am responsible for people being full of anger.
- I am a cry baby.
- I am showing a lack of scholarship.
- I am taking this to the extreme.
- I should have dealt with this issue privately.
- My assumptions are wrong.
- I am arrogant enough to believe I have a corner on religion.
- My post is fruitless.
- My post is the reason people turn away from the Messianic movement.
- I am being inflammatory.
- I am an enemy of Israel, just not in the sense of “we hate you and want to kill you”.
- I am harming the Messianic community.
- I am childish.
- I am not being professional.
- I am stirring the pot.
- I am acting like a novice.
- I am toratically (SP) committing a sin.
- I have chosen to make this personal.
- I am grossily (SP) misinterpreting Boaz’s words.
- I was disrespectful.
- I am supersessionist in regards to Israel.
- I am making fun of Boaz Michael.
- I am reaping rebukes, and deservedly so.
- I am not loving mankind.
- My post is damaging the body of Messiah.
- I am not keeping my soul in check.
- I should close the comments to the post.
- I am using theological discussion as an excuse to act out my sinful nature.
- I have an understanding of the Bible shaped by an already-made-up mind.
- I am unwilling to believe any interpretation other than my own.
- I diminish the purpose of Yeshua.
- I am editorializing.
- I could have been more constructive.
- I am saying things Yeshua would not have said.
And that was just from one post!
Fine blog reader, this blog, Kineti, is the oldest individual Messianic blog on the web – just imagine how many insults there have been over the 7 years of running this blog!
About that post, if you’re wondering how it resolved, I spoke to Boaz Michael over the phone twice Friday. Then several private emails. The end result is, I did one thing that was inaccurate, and two things that were accurate. Details coming later this week, stay tuned.
Judah, a good chunk of these "rebukes" is your personalization of charges which were at one time or another leveled at the MOVEMENTS or theological beliefs that you may or may not be be part of or espouse, and not at you personally.
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen to personalize them even though your name was not even so much as mentioned either in my blog post or in Boaz's comments on the said post. You have chosen to make this personal, not the people you are accusing. Once you made this personal and public, you reaped personal rebukes from many folks who saw through this.
Thanks, Gene, I'll add these new ones to the list.
ReplyDeleteJudah, I'd say you wouldn't believe the nasty things people say to me, but on the other hand, I think you would believe.....
ReplyDeleteAs nasty as religious people can be, I have observed far better and far worse behavior in secular people. We make a choice every time we respond. We can bless and encourage people, or tear them down.
Anyone who reads my blog knows I'm far from perfect, but I try to keep it civil with everyone, and avoid personal attacks. Even when I step on toes, which is often, I want people to know its not personal. I enjoy your blog even when I disagree with you, because I believe we have achieved a level of mutual respect. Expressing it is important.
Yeah, you and I have reached a mutual level of respect. I am thankful for that.
ReplyDeleteHey, fine blog readers, Gene suggested "a good chunk" of those insults were really aimed at my community, not myself personally. (As if that mattered...)
ReplyDeleteI just counted about 6 aimed at my community, and 82 aimed at me personally.
Gotta love statistics.
I happen to think that this list you composed is great. You should make it prominent on your site somewhere. That way, if folks ever want to insult in the future they can just use numbers instead of actually verbalizing anything hurtful, e.g :
ReplyDeleteJudah, you are 3, 31 and 41! Next time I think you should 48.
LOL, thanks, Gene. I should do that. Maybe we can share a common insult repository, then we can just slam each other with numbers.
ReplyDelete"Did you see Gene's blog today? Oh man, it's yet another 64, 62."
"He's 86ing it again."
"Whoa! Two different 27s from Derek in a single week!"
Blogging while angry is a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeleteIt's like having an argument with your wife after 11 pm: your emotions are far too colored by exhaustion to make for a productive argument - it's just going to descend into nitpicking, accusations, and raised voices, followed by a night on the couch.
After 11 pm, either you let it roll off your back, or you decide to deal with it in the morning after you've both had coffee.
I'm glad that you and Boaz spoke on the phone. He's straddling more fences than I can imagine. He's bound to step on toes in the process.
It is a bad idea to blog while angry.
ReplyDeleteWell, I slept on the issue for the most part of a week before I wrote my last two entries on my blog: http://fllowheirs.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteI was calm, cool and colective and just exposed a fool for what he is.
@Judah, I am a long-time geek. I have been frequenting religious forums and blogs for 25 years. You are one of the most gracious and balanced men I have read online. I sometimes cringe at what some say to you, and then I read your response and see your good nature.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Paul was a very pious man - but when the Gentiles who were being joined to Israel were bad-mouthed by the First Century equivalent to Gene, Derek, Boaz, et al, he stood up against them. Who can forget his memorable suggestion that they go emasculate themselves? I wish sometimes we could read their response to him - they likely would have looked like some of those comments you quoted. < grin >
Judah, you are warm and fuzzy compared to Paul. Keep up the good work.
B"H
"Who can forget his memorable suggestion that they go emasculate themselves?"
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding someone, Rick? Nice historical and biblical revisionism! Paul rebuked teachers who were trying to wholesale Judaize Gentiles in Galatia, that is he rebuked those who were teaching that they must live as Jews and take on the whole yoke of Torah, even to the point of circumcision. That fits certain One Law teachers and teachings perfectly, and not anyone in Messianic Judaism.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteCan you show me one example of Boaz Michael, Derek, or Gene. Telling Gentiles that the can not keep the Torah?
Can you also please explain how they are the same as those who Paul spoke against (i.e. people saying Gentiles needed to become Jewish and keep all the Torah?)
@Gene, your bias is showing. Read any of Shayne Cohen's excellent books on the subject. The issue for Paul was that believers were being told that if they were not Jewish they weren't really a part of the family - and that if they wanted to be "Jewish" they could do it with a simple ceremony. You've said as much as well. You have said that you consider someone to be "Jewish" if they go through "conversion".
ReplyDeleteThe eventual fruit of BE (including FFOZ's odd brand) is "conversion" for everyone. Not a valid "conversion" in Judaism's eyes, but as Derek has shown, it gets you in at least one room of the family mansion.
B"H
Can you show me one example of Boaz Michael, Derek, or Gene. Telling Gentiles that the can not keep the Torah?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, there is ample evidence for that (have you even read Gene's blog?), but that is not the point in this and the previous thread. The issue is whether "One Law" and "Two House" people are "supercessionist" as Boaz, Derek, and Gene contend. In that matter, their words speak for themselves.
When they high-five each other in public, they apparently assume no one else is reading. This Internet thingy is amazing, eh?
Rick,
ReplyDeletesince there is ample evidence please show me.
Secondly,
what in your opinion is the Jewish relationship to the Torah? Are the Jewish people still the chosen people (i.e Israel) who bring the light of Hashem to the nations, or are they just one part of Israel?
Peace,
Jeremiah
"Gene, your bias is showing. Read any of Shayne Cohen's excellent books on the subject. The issue for Paul was that believers were being told that if they were not Jewish they weren't really a part of the family - and that if they wanted to be "Jewish" they could do it with a simple ceremony. You've said as much as well. You have said that you consider someone to be "Jewish" if they go through "conversion"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I've read Cohen's books you are likely referring to - they support nothing of One Law or what you are trying to support here. I have these books in my library, so I will be reviewing them. Secondly, it is One-Law theology that says that Gentiles must be just as Mosaic Torah observant as Jews in order to live a life of obedience that is pleasing to G-d.
Messianic Jews accept Christians/Gentiles as brothers without requiring them to become observant, live a Jewish lifestyle and join a synagogue where they will have to assimilate into a Jewish culture. We believe that they have liberty in many things (per Acts and Galatians, to name a few books). We believe that far from being violators of Torah or being Torah-free they are already observing things that are specifically required of them.
One Law at its most extreme comes very close to being neo-Galatianism.
"You have said that you consider someone to be "Jewish" if they go through "conversion"
ReplyDeleteRick, and what's wrong with that, exactly? Should I consider someone Jewish who was not born Jewish or one who has not gone through a conversion? Perhaps I am missing your point. Besides, unlike the One Law requirement that all Gentiles are obligated to be as observant as Jews, conversion to Judaism in ANY Judaism is a totally voluntary thing, not a requirement from G-d (it doesn't make a person magically more valuable to G-d).
Jeremiah,
ReplyDeleteYet you Gentiles are bent on showing us how it is done, right?
@Gene, the point is, your so-called "conversions" are a non-biblical method for "joining the family" - which is ironic, because that is what you accuse "One Law" of doing. I can't believe you don't see the irony of it all.
ReplyDeleteI loved Mark Nanos take on Galatians, where the chutzpah was that the influencers, in his view, were likely "converts" (i.e. not Jewish), and yet were telling non-Jews what they needed to do to be "in the family."
Here is the chutzpah today (much like the influencers in Galatia): supposedly "coverted Jews" (lacking the DNA necessary to claim biblical Jewishness), telling other non-Jews what that they cannot be "family" - when they themselves are rejected by 99% of Judaism because their "conversion" was done by an invalid authority. Not to be outdone, maybe Jews like you (who have the DNA) who are no longer recognized by the authorities of Judaism because of their Christian beliefs.
So Gene, be honest. The necessary authority to be a "part of the family" (your words), is that another Jew gives you a buy. Call it "conversion" if you will. How is that different from non-Jews who recognize that Messiah has grafted them into Israel, and made them a "part of the family"? Actually, it is quite different. In Ephesians 2-3 we learn that former Gentiles were brought near not by human ritual, but by the work of the King Himself.
Here is the challenge for all of you claiming that folks are "supercessionist" who don't fit your theological model: If you are truly a friend of Israel, what are you doing living in the USA? Given half a chance, thousands of those that you excoriate would be making aliyah faster than you could imagine. But they can't make aliyah. What is your excuse? .
since there is ample evidence please show me.
ReplyDelete@Jeremiah. Straw man. You brought that up, not I. Read Derek's own blogs.
what in your opinion is the Jewish relationship to the Torah? Are the Jewish people still the chosen people (i.e Israel) who bring the light of Hashem to the nations, or are they just one part of Israel?
My opinion is not what matters. HaShem's eternal plan was and is that Israel is His beloved, His chosen. Each and every person born of Jewish parents is Israel. The Torah is theirs.
If Gentiles are drawn to the light, what is that light if not the Torah, and Messiah therein? (Deut 4) And how should those Jews respond when they are asked by the nations what wise G-d gave them such wise and good laws? "Go away, these are not for you"? That is not good news, but bait and switch.
B"H
Rick,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments.
This is my last post on this blog.
"And how should those Jews respond when they are asked by the nations what wise G-d gave them such wise and good laws? "Go away, these are not for you"? That is not good news, but bait and switch."
ReplyDeleteSo, the Good News according to you, Rick, is bringing Gentiles under Torah observance? And here I thought that it was Yeshua's sacrifice offering Gentiles hope, salvation and redemption, giving them access to G-d, planting them among the natural branches on the Abrahamic tree. I think you are teaching another "gospel" here (Galatians 1:6).
Judah.. the title of this post is perfect.
ReplyDeleteFor Gene and his like Fellow heirs means the Jews are more fellow, and the Gentiles are less heirs... It is obvious who is teaching "another gospel..."
ReplyDeleteI'm getting emails from Christians who've been reading my blog and these related conversations. They're asking me if "Messianic Judaism" has collectively lost its mind.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what to tell them.
"I don't know what to tell them."
ReplyDeleteJames, tell them that not everything that appears to be "Messianic Judaism" is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the overarching collective dynamic, not individual people and groups, Gene. I had recently suggested to a Pastor friend of mine that some of his congregation might find the topics I post on my personal blog interesting. He agreed to put the word out to his people.
ReplyDeleteThat was right before everything exploded. I emailed him to apologize for my suggestion and the likely shock that his congregants had received at walking blindly into these "conversations". It must have been like walking into a room expecting a quiet celebration and immediately having a chair broken across their faces.
While within "the movement", we are aware of the divisions and "categories" our groups seem to fall into, from an outsider's point of view, it all appears to be one entity. They suppose there is some manner of unity between Jews and Gentiles in the "Messianic movement". I hate to disappoint them.
I've tried to describe that unity as an ideal this morning. However, we live in reality.
NOTE: Had to delete and recreate this comment. Messed up the URL.
"While within "the movement", we are aware of the divisions and "categories" our groups seem to fall into, from an outsider's point of view, it all appears to be one entity."
ReplyDeleteI would liken this to Jews or Muslims looking into Christianity and lumping every group that claims to be part of it into one big mess, e.g. not distinguishing Catholics from Protestants, Mormons from Evangelicals, Anglicans from Jehovah's [not G-d's real name] Witnesses.
Growing up, from a Jewish point of view, every Gentile was automatically a Christian. Lumping people together because of outward appearance is counterproductive.
In such cases the first course of action should be education. James, I can talk to your pastor friend, if you'd like:)
Thanks, Gene but he does know the difference and I'm sure has already "interpreted" what is going on. I'm just personally embarrassed that I encouraged an audience only to have them witness us airing our dirty laundry, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make is that our specific "factions" aren't completely disconnected and disassociated from each other, so what one does, affects the rest of us. If that weren't true, then OL wouldn't bristle when MJ calls them "supersessionist" and MJ wouldn't get their nose bent out of shape when OL says they're "Israel".
After all, none of us seem to complain about the LDS church, which claims they have completely replaced Israel. They even have a "Melchizedekian" priesthood. We don't complain, because the LDS church is in no way, shape, or form connected to the "Messianic movement". Only the people along our continuum who drive each other crazy are.
Mark Kinzer wrote his PMJ book with the intent, not to beat up the church, but to attempt to communicate and bring the church on board with MJ's viewpoint regarding many issues, including supersessionism. How are we furthering the impression to the church that they should partner with MJ given the current state of "development" in the larger "Messianic" movement. MJ may not claim OL or TH, but we're intertwined. We either solve our problems together, or we fuss and feud as forever separated and isolated entities and enclaves. We can't have a positive impact on the larger body of the Messiah if we continually marginalize ourselves with petty bickering.
"MJ may not claim OL or TH, but we're intertwined. We either solve our problems together, or we fuss and feud as forever separated and isolated entities and enclaves."
ReplyDeleteThe separation is necessary, I believe, it order to show who is approved by G-d. Eventually, I see the following scenarios coming to fruition:
1. OL/TH becoming ever smaller until only a few small hold out groups remain (probably unified under a single teacher). This can already be seen today, even sooner than I thought would happen a few years ago.
2. Many people from these groups will abandon previously held supersessionist views, embrace the Messianic Jewish perspective as normative and authoritative. They will have the following options before them:
- Rejoin a Christian community
- Reorient their existing congregations to be Judaically informed / Israel friendly Christian churches that are respectful of Jewish idenity
- Join a Messianic Jewish congregation (in cases where they feel a calling to bless the Jewish people and the work G-d is doing there)
- A few especially committed individuals may seek conversion where accepted and available.
Gene, the trick is getting from here to there and the possibility that God may actually have a plan that we mere mortals can't entirely anticipate.
ReplyDeleteThe following is something I said via email while discussing this matter this morning. I think it fits and starts out by quoting Jewzilla:
START QUOTE:
Aaron said: I don't agree that their current state is where they are going to stay, if they're actually going to become truly part of Israel. But I'm sure that anyone who seeks out the urge and desire that they have for Israel and Tora, they will eventually end up in the right place. And may HaShem help them.
Who is to say that the current state of OL and TH...is where they're going to stay? Maybe OL isn't a mistake but part of a developmental process. I used to think that the schism that occurred between the Jews and Gentiles in the "early church" was a mistake, but Paul says that Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25), so I must conclude that this too is part of God's plan.
END QUOTE
I'll take it for granted that you'll disagree with me, but Allyson's comment on yesterday's blog hit home with me that there are a lot of good people that MJ would willingly throw under a bus because they are OL. I can't do that and I've already suggested alternatives which have been discarded.
I wrote a blog post this morning that shares a larger vision of the body of believers, well beyond such labels and groups as "One Law" and "Messianic Judaism" which we must conclude are not the "only true church", lest we've lost our perspective.
I'm going to continue to avoid "taking a dump" on the people out there who are sincerely seeking truth, even if we don't always see eye to eye. Having "the right" to get in their face doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Our society is obsessed with "rights" and that's consumed the body of believers in this country. The Bible doesn't speak of our rights, particularly our rights to damage others. It speaks of doing right by other people, even to helping our "enemy" pick up his overloaded donkey or helping our "neighbor" when we find him injured and lying on the road.
I hope the fine blog readers are clear about what's being said here: OL and TH Messianic communities are not approved by God and will disappear.
ReplyDeleteSee?
This isn't bashing. This isn't hating. This isn't counter-Messiah.
This is clarity: one group of Messianics, the Bi-Ecclesiologists, believe they are approved by God, and the other Messianic groups are not, and will disappear.
Drawing attention to beliefs like this one, and Boaz's own beliefs about our community, is not bashing. It is not hatred. It is not counter-Messiah.
It is clarity.
My community, which includes One Law and Two House Messianics, believes we are all approved by God and striving after the same goal. Until we reach a point of mutual submission to one another, we will continue to be in conflict.
As the late Art Katz once said, "What this world needs is for men to wash one another's feet."
>> I'm going to continue to avoid "taking a dump" on the people out there who are sincerely seeking truth
ReplyDeleteThank you.
James, the only way the "good people" in OL/TH will know the truth is if they are confronted with it. Beating around the bush will not do. This is not denigrating them or being mean, this is not throwing anyone under the proverbial bus. Remember, "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses." (Proverbs 27:6). Again, I bring these issue to the forefront because I have seen first hand the result of these teachings.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would refer folks to my blog post titled "If the Apostle Paul was a Messianic Jewish blogger...
"
All I'm saying Gene is that there are other ways to communicate that point and, it may be a long series of hopefully civil transactions rather than bold confrontation. As this and Judah's previous blog post have illustrated, just standing in front of someone and telling them, "Change!" isn't particularly effective and in fact, produces the opposite of the intended result.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the proverb you quoted, I can hardly refute scripture, but the operant term in your quote is "friend". The first thing you (not you personally...the generic "you") have to do is establish relationship and then friendship so that, when the friend delivers the "wounds", they will be "trusted".
By the way, that's really hard to do. I had a friend of many years who started to go a bit haywire. I tried very gently to confront him (privately) on what he was doing and how it was hurting others (no, you don't know him) and he still couldn't receive the "wounds" well. It permanently damaged our relationship. I miss his company and companionship, but I couldn't have just ignored what he was doing.
Yes, sometimes you have to confront others, but how you do it and the timing are critical. Also, as I stated before, the level of relationship (which is supported by the proverb you quoted) is absolutely vital. If that relationship doesn't exist, you will not be able to get your point across.
This isn't just you Gene, this is every body in the Messianic blogosphere who is involved in this conversation, me included.
James, I AM being a friend, if not always in a personal sense (how can anyone be a friend of everyone?), in as much as I would like to see something good happen for the folks enamored and held captive by these theologies and teachers. When I posted a blog post comparing supersessionism as found in parts of the Messianic Movement vs that of Christianity, there were no personal attacks - just historical quotes. People are welcome to read and absorb them, or they can ignore them and go on their merry way.
ReplyDeleteThere's both validity and falsity to both arguments. The problem is that people have based a whole religion and sect on a set of books, the "NT", which have not only inconsistencies (which can be explained), but parts of it which are not found in the earliest and most reliable texts. Also exists is the fact that Roman Christians edited the texts not just a few times.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more is that Romans were in the business of mixing their religion with other local religions native to regions they conquered, in order to cause them to be integrated together. No doubt, to some extent this is what Christianity was, a Roman attempt to mix Judaism and elements of it into their own religion. Their Jesus figure is perhaps based on more than one historical person. The Talmudh has two accounts of a "Yeshu", and contain elements of similarity to "NT" Jesus accounts, but these two separate Yeshus of the Talmudh lived one a century before and the other a century after the time that the Christian Jesus was supposed to have lived.
Perhaps the "Nazarenes" and "Ebionites" were followers of a person whom Christianity based their new narrative on. Apparently, according even to Christian accounts, at least some of the two groups that I mentioned neither believed that the Yehoshua`/Yeshua` they knew of was God or believed in the virgin birth.
There are countless parallels between all the major ancient empires' folklore regarding their men-gods. In Egyptian mythology, Horus was born of a virgin, he was born in Annu (place of bread), he was referred to as the "morning star", and identified with a lamb. He was identified with a cross, and called the "krist".
He was described as "the way, truth, and life", was baptized at the age of 30, and had 12 followers. Seven people were aboard a boat with him, and he was tempted on a mountain by Set.
Further parallels between Jesus and other pagan dieties can be read of here.
Basically, what exists in the "NT" is hearsay, in that one cannot really determine what exactly happened, and what didn't. It would really be erroneous to base an entire religion on this.
I think if people focused on HaShem and Tora, and maybe don't even need to have an opinion about Jesus and the "NT" now, but just focus on praising and praying to HaShem only and learning more Tora - a lot of problems would be solved.
One thing is for sure: the Tanakh says strongly, throughout, that salvation, deliverance, and eternal life are found in HaShem, and in adhering to what He requires of any given individual. It is an error to say that one must believe Jesus was such and such to have eternal life. Nowhere does such a concept exist in the Tanakh. And having faith in HaShem and His Tora is not lacking - not lacking in the least.
Gene, I'm not saying that you made a personal attack, nor am I saying that you personally need to become a friend to anyone you are trying to speak with on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI'm addressing the larger MJ/BE world which has a particular set of goals significantly overlapping your personal statements. I'm suggesting a strategy for achieving or at least addressing these goals to the "target audience". I know this won't work out for everyone, but I believe it will for some, if expectations could be adjusted away from being immediate and absolute.
The whole "Messianic movement" is undergoing a developmental process, not unlike a living person. You don't expect a baby to walk when it's first born nor to speak whole sentences at two months of age. I'm not targeting OL as "the baby" but rather the larger MJ movement which (like it or not) includes OL, TH, and their variants (and who knows what the heck I am).
Gene, do what you have to do in the way you feel you have to do it. Everyone else will also follow their conscience and probably their emotional responses. The result, at least in the short run, will be the blog post we're commenting on today...people continually shooting from the hip in "wild west" fashion.
Someday the proverbial light bulb will pop on over all of our heads, but it will take no one less then the Messiah to flip the switch. All by ourselves, we don't seem to have it in us to get it together and "bring the Mashiach".
More's the pity.
Judah, do most of the things listed on your "list of insults" here really qualify as an "insults" or as a "rebukes"? Insults are designed to hurt and demean, where as rebukes are designed to correct and see a better outcome. I believe that most people here did not wish to insult anyone.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, one can be insulted by a rebuke or a correction, but that would be a wrong reaction.
Again, are the following really "insults" (a sampling)?
ReplyDelete22. I am wrong.
23. I should delete my post.
48. I could have handled this better.
84. I am unwilling to believe any interpretation other than my own.
87. I could have been more constructive.
Vicious?
Good question.
ReplyDeleteObjective answer: inconclusive.
When someone says, "You're acting like a cry baby!" is that a righteous rebuke?
Probably not.
But what about things like "you're letting anger rule your heart"?
That's more gray area. Was it meant as an insult? Maybe, but maybe not.
The problem is that the motive of the commenter does not determine the accuracy of the comment. That is, a commenter might offer something he deems righteous rebuke, but ends up slandererous.
Example:
A Christian man tells you, being entirely convinced in his mind, that you are a legalist who has discarded the grace of Christ.
The Christian man may be offering a righteous rebuke, in his own eyes, but to you, this is a falsehood and is ultimately slanderous.
The end result is the defender saying, "You're pushing slander!"
And the attacker says, "I was just offering righteous rebuke!"
Both could be ccrrect -- it may be slandering an individual, and it may be righteous rebuke in the other man's eyes.
Whether a rebuke is righteous depends entirely on who is measuring the righteousness. And in religious fights, both sides have their own measurement. So it's subjective.
Going non-objective for a moment, I can tell you that, with the almost 90 rebukes/insults in that last post, I was hurt. I know I'm not those things you guys accused me of, but damn, they still hurt. Words hurt, boy.
"Going non-objective for a moment, I can tell you that, with the almost 90 rebukes/insults in that last post, I was hurt. I know I'm not those things you guys accused me of, but damn, they still hurt. Words hurt, boy."
ReplyDeleteI know... I've been insulted, slandered a plenty and misrepresented a ton. Heck, I am getting bashed in as we speak on another thread (thanks, Rick!:) Most of the time I don't let things bother me - I view this as sparring in a yeshiva. That said, I felt hurt one time online by a respected teacher who addressed me personally online, but I didn't make it known publicly how I felt - I just clarified what I meant to the person who misrepresented me me and we have been at peace since (we still disagree on the matter).
I wonder if our learned advocate Gene considers the people who wrote this as Sessesionalists, maybe even racists?
ReplyDelete"R. Jeremiah said: Whence can you know that the Gentile who practice the Torah is equal to the High Priest? Because it says, 'which if A MAN do, he shall live through them' (Lev.18:5). And it says, 'This is the Torah of man' (II Sam.7:19). It does not say: 'The Torah of Priests, Levites, Israelites,' but, 'This is the Torah of man, O Lord God.' And it does not say, Open the gates, and let the Priests and Levites and Israel enter,' but it says, "open the gates that a righteous Gentile may enter' (Isaiah 26:2); and it says, 'This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter it.' It does not say, 'The Priests and the Levites and Israel shall enter it,' but it says, 'The righteous shall enter it' (Psalm 118:20). It does not say, ;Rejoice ye, Priests, Levites and Israelites,' but it says, ' Rejoice ye righteous' (Psalm 33:1). And it does not say, ;Do good, O Lord, to the Priests and the Levites and the Israelites,' but it says, 'Do good O Lord, to the good' (Psalm 125:4). So even a gentile, if he practises the Torah, is equal to the High Priest." (Sifra 86b; Bava Kamma 38a).
A qualification here: Since the connection is made to Lev. 18:5, it seems that the Torah which is referenced here for a Gentile are only the Moral Laws. Sanhedrin 58b is very harsh on a Gentile who does not become a proselyte but keeps the Shabbat and other ceremonial laws. (As if the shabbat is immoral....).
Tat:
Sanhedrin 59b posted opposite opinions on the matter. We read the first one that a Gentile who studies the Torah is likened to a High Priest. Here is the opposite opinion:
"R Jochanan said: ' A Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, " Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance, it is OUR inheritance, not Theirs.'" (Sanhedrin 59b).
the Rabbis of course had all the answers. In order to settle these conflicting statements the Talmud answers:
"In this case he is engaged in the seven Noachide commandments. (Sanhedrin 59b). The Tosaphot on Avoda Zara 3a adds that a Gentile is permitted to study those specific seven Noachide commandments-and if he learned more than this, he is punishable by death.
The Rambam gave it his own stamp of approval:
"A Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death. he should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone." (The Laws of Kings chapter 10, halacha 9)
I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...The likes of Gene have mighty wide shoulders to stand upon, no?
Judah, this blog post could be seen as an attempt to render you "criticism-proof" in the blogosphere. That is (and it briefly occurred to me that might be your intent, but I dismissed the thought), one could interpret this as you saying "If you criticize or disagree with me in any way, you are being a vicious religious person", or words to that effect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that doesn't seem "in character" for you. I do have to echo Gene's comments about whether or not any criticism is automatically an insult (and I've been insulted plenty). To add on to what you said back to Gene, it's not just the person's intent but their method.
For instance, someone could say "I think you're a jerk..but I don't mean that in a bad way." That's a lousy example, but a person could have a "good" intent in their heart, but use a poor (or at least badly edited) method to communicate it. That could lead to horrible misunderstandings that could spiral way out of control on the "Interwebs".
I don't doubt that some of the comments that have been aimed at you were done so out of anger, hurt, or disappointment and poor judgment was used. Pausing, re-reading, and editing should be employed before hitting the "Publish Your Comment" button (good advice for all of us). Sometimes I even use a text editor to craft and edit my response and then copy and paste it in the comment box.
I told Gene in the comments on one of his blogs that to be a blogger is to be a "target". People can and will take exception to something you've said. That's human nature. It's not if we'll be criticized but when.
The trick is in how we respond to such comments, regardless of who made the comment, how they made it, and what intent was involved. Controlling other people is hard. Controlling ourselves is hard, but at least we know we can if we put effort into it (and you wouldn't believe the stuff I think about writing and never put into action).
I wonder if our learned advocate Gene considers the people who wrote this as Sessesionalists, maybe even racists?
ReplyDelete"R. Jeremiah said: Whence can you know that the Gentile who practice the Torah is equal to the High Priest? Because it says, 'which if A MAN do, he shall live through them' (Lev.18:5). And it says, 'This is the Torah of man' (II Sam.7:19). It does not say: 'The Torah of Priests, Levites, Israelites,' but, 'This is the Torah of man, O Lord God.' And it does not say, Open the gates, and let the Priests and Levites and Israel enter,' but it says, "open the gates that a righteous Gentile may enter' (Isaiah 26:2); and it says, 'This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter it.' It does not say, 'The Priests and the Levites and Israel shall enter it,' but it says, 'The righteous shall enter it' (Psalm 118:20). It does not say, ;Rejoice ye, Priests, Levites and Israelites,' but it says, ' Rejoice ye righteous' (Psalm 33:1). And it does not say, ;Do good, O Lord, to the Priests and the Levites and the Israelites,' but it says, 'Do good O Lord, to the good' (Psalm 125:4). So even a gentile, if he practises the Torah, is equal to the High Priest." (Sifra 86b; Bava Kamma 38a).
A qualification here: Since the connection is made to Lev. 18:5, it seems that the Torah which is referenced here for a Gentile are only the Moral Laws. Sanhedrin 58b is very harsh on a Gentile who does not become a proselyte but keeps the Shabbat and other ceremonial laws. (As if the shabbat is immoral....).
Tat:
Sanhedrin 59b posted opposite opinions on the matter. We read the first one that a Gentile who studies the Torah is likened to a High Priest. Here is the opposite opinion:
"R Jochanan said: ' A Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, " Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance, it is OUR inheritance, not Theirs.'" (Sanhedrin 59b).
the Rabbis of course had all the answers. In order to settle these conflicting statements the Talmud answers:
"In this case he is engaged in the seven Noachide commandments. (Sanhedrin 59b). The Tosaphot on Avoda Zara 3a adds that a Gentile is permitted to study those specific seven Noachide commandments-and if he learned more than this, he is punishable by death.
The Rambam gave it his own stamp of approval:
"A Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death. he should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone." (The Laws of Kings chapter 10, halacha 9)
I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...The likes of Gene have mighty wide shoulders to stand upon, no?
Judah,
ReplyDeleteYou should add to title: also people who speak with a forked tongue. Boaz Is a primary example.
Benzvi, yawn... if you want to ignore the context as well as teachings of other sages that uphold and praise righteous Gentiles, you might as well accuse Yeshua himself of being a racist and Gentile hater for calling Gentiles "dogs" (Matthew 15:26)!
ReplyDeleteTalmud is a conversation, with many opinions expressed - many extreme positions are overruled by others sages who disagree. It's not a book of rules but a dialog.
Your hatred of Judaism and Jews is tiring. What's up with self-hatred that many Jews display, I'll never get it... I've seen plenty of them growing up.
I know this is stupid of me and fruitless and a general waste of time to keep correcting Dan, but some folks may actually believe this man. Here's an article that James put together on his congregational blog titled What does the Talmud say about Gentiles? ?
ReplyDeleteWell I guess ours here is not a conversation, so Gene can call us supersessionists.
ReplyDeleteNice logic learned guru....
Rambam is Talmud?
ReplyDeleteI guess if i am a self hating Jew, then Gene is a hater of Gentiles. Which is of course not supersessesionalism, and not recism...
ReplyDelete@Jewzilla-
ReplyDeleteI think you have stated the best response/comment in regards to explaining this entire conversation (in both posts) -- and you saved me the time of writing it out myself.
Half of these arguments wouldn't exist if people would stop reading the NT from a fundamentalist perspective. The definition of fundamentalism states (so it is clear to everyone here):
"A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming."
When you understand the history, things come into a clearer light on how they should be regarded.
@Rick Spurlock-
I think the question is who defines a valid conversion? Even the most liberal forms of Judaism have paths to conversion, therefore, it is obviously something that Jews (as an entire people group) see as a valid part of Judaism.
Yes, the orthodox have the "Israeli Patent" (and so many times this seems to be the only thing people care about and thus miss the point of conversion), but any critical thinking Jew knows that the "orthodox" Judaism we see practiced today is under 200 years old.
I think the question is who defines a valid conversion? Even the most liberal forms of Judaism have paths to conversion, therefore, it is obviously something that Jews (as an entire people group) see as a valid part of Judaism.@Zayin, yet they all share one thing: folks like Boaz, Derek, and even Gene are not "Jews" by their definition.
ReplyDeleteMy point is not to deny anyone else's self-identification. My point is that they deny it to others, and yet the requirements they thrust upon others, if applied to themselves would not cut it either (pun intended).
I am a strong believer in follow the wisdom of our Sages, unless it is in contradition to Scripture. I find that occurance rare. So, while I agree with the sentiment expressed by the BE group that we are not free to interpret Torah as we see fit, it is VERY ironic that on the issue of "who is a Jew" BE breaks in large part from the traditions of our Sages. They do their "own" conversions, which are not consistent with tradition. They let goyim into "the family," at THEIR discretion - and yet deny "family" status to those they disagree with.
Derek Lemen is not Jewish. Boaz Michael (aka Chris Detwiller) is not Jewish. Yet, because they have received the nod from others in BE they proclaim that they are. So, by their own logic, they are "supercessionist" in the same way they accuse others.
Judah, you called this post, "Religious People Are Vicious," and having read all the comments, I have to say, that a large portion of your readers set out to prove the point. You know I don't mind controversy or the free exchange of ideas, but unless I am reading these responses wrong, I'm seeing a lot of angry, nasty attitudes, all in the name of righteousness.
ReplyDeleteI write this with great hesitation, knowing that human nature will have your responders turn on me as well. Is it possible to disagree without denigrating the person we disagree with? I hope so. I like to think we are better than that.
Dr. Schiffman,
ReplyDeleteIt was a specific blog, really one blog and one comment that caused the racheting up of the rhetoric.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIt may have been from one post, but what drew me to Yeshua in the first place was seeing Him in the lives of people. When we treat each other badly, people won't see Yeshua at all. I'm guilty of this as well, and I try to do better in my own life.
If we are not capable of turning the other cheek and treating one another with respect, when we feel we have been wronged, we profane the Torah we talk about lifting up. I'd rather be wronged than to dishonor Yeshua by treating others badly. I've done it too many times already, and I don't want to do it anymore. - I'm not trying to sound like Mother Theresa, but I'm tired of attacks on people. Enough already. I'm getting too old for this.
Perfect, Dr. Schiffman.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dr. Schiffman. You are a rare person and educator.
ReplyDelete@Zayin
ReplyDeleteI'm so, so glad you enjoyed what I wrote and agree. That makes me very, very happy, seriously. B"H
@Judah, reading the comments gives me an overwhelming desire to start blogging again. /sarc
ReplyDeleteSoldier on.
seems odd that some people would use this post to suggest Yeshua never really existed, or that the romans invented him. it doesn't seem to make sense that the romans would've created the notion of a Messiah character only to have him sentenced to death at the hands of roman rulers. what a theory.
ReplyDelete@Benicho
ReplyDeleteWhat a couple of us stated does not mean he didn't exist. In fact, I have no doubt that he did exist. The questions arise with what changed in the stories spoken about him.
Looking at everything critically and from a non-fundamentalist viewpoint, the NT was NEVER meant to be taken as infallible and literal. What Jewzilla mentioned about the shared deity aspects in the story line are true. You can look that up and see for yourself.
Facts shouldn't shake anyone's theology except for hopefully bettering as more truth flows in. That does not discredit his messiahship for those that believe it. It only proves that there were things added, changed, etc. Not only was this done by the early Roman catholic church, but then the protestants did it later to suit there needs as they broke away and fought against the Catholic oppression.
In regards to your comment that it would be odd for them to create a messiah character but then sentence him to death by roman rulers -- they didn't -- their is an emphasis that it is NOT the roman rulers, but the Jews who wanted him taken out. In fact, the story of Pilate shows us two important things in regards to this. The most obvious is he washes his hands of the incident and secondly, he turns the whole things into a game. Will it be Barnabas or Yeshua -- you can have one back.
Typo edit... was typing fast. I meant to say Barabbas, not Barnabas.
ReplyDeleteFor those folks that say pagan equivalents of New Testament stories suggest redaction and thus render the New Testament unreliable, consider the same scenario for the Tenakh. There are pagan equivalents of the creation story, the Tabernacle, Noah, the Ark, to name a few. Heck, even the Torah law code itself has parallels in Ancient Near East religion.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to throw out the New Testament because there exist pagan parallels, then you'd might as well go full monty and become an atheist.
See Is the New Testament Reliable?
@Himango
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone that has posted on the topic is saying to "throw it out". But it does help to understand the almost 2000 year old history of the document you are reading. It can still be "inspired by G-d" and not be infallible.
I do know that there are those out there who do think entire books should just be thrown out in an attempt to make the NT infallible. That is equally stupid. The gospels are the views from each individual perspective of what occurred. It is no different than testimonies in a court case.
Judah,
ReplyDeleteNot near the coincidental parallels between Horus, or Tamus, and Jesus. There are similar creation stories because they come from the same source.
But nowhere in Judaism has there even been statue creating, man-worshiping, nor any prophecy referring to a supernatural human who is worshiped as a god, whose life apparently paralleled the various accounts of the same pagan man-god figure of various major pagan traditions.
Another difference is that the creation account already happened... Jesus didn't come until thousands of years AFTER pagan world religions already had an ongoing tradition of pagan man-gods. Clearly, it is at least in part a product of the old Roman game of mixing religions.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteYou are kidding, aren't you?
Read Gen. 18 and explain to us why did Abraham bow to a Man and called him the judge of the world?
My beliefs aside, I view the theory of the Messiah being a Roman creation quite unbelievable from a historical aspect. I'm a history major with an emphasis in Indo-European culture so I've rehashed the east vs. west philosophy before.
ReplyDeleteFrom a study of Greek and Roman culture from the Greek dark ages through Pax Romana the overarching religious sentiment (as the Romans were directly influenced by Greek thought and teachings) was much like it is in modern day not-so-surprisingly. Perhaps you can make the connection that the philosophy of Greek logic, in it's infancy then, dictated theology more-so than in the east and near east. As we see today logic and reason are often used as a replacement for a belief in a deity. Roman and Greek gods were, even then, quite often viewed as traditional stories that shaped their cultural history and identity. I'll avoid going into the details that distinguished Roman philosophy and theology from Greek as to keep this point shorter. Simply put, they had atheists and agnostics just as we do today. That is not to say there weren't devout pagans. Given what we know about the Greek and Roman theology and the overall outcome of those pantheons thanks to hindsight it's quite easy to discern that the Romans nor the Greeks created a Messiah. The idea was foreign, neither ingrained in their tradition or their philosophy. This could be used to argue why Paul was so successful in his missions. Greeks in particular had a very macabre view of the afterlife, while it seems Romans were more liberal regarding their pantheon (generally speaking). In order to grasp the full absurdity of the claim that the Romans may have somehow invented a Messiah one must actually immerse themselves in ancient Roman and Greek texts. The Greeks and Romans were an arrogant people, no way around it. Look no further than the writings of Josephus Flavius to see just how arrogant and iron fisted the Romans were. For those who have read Josephus it is quite easy to see in his history of the Roman conquests that he was reluctant to write unfavorably about them. At one point in describing the Germanic revolts he describes the Germans as being fools for ever considering such a thing (ironic considering the Jewish revolt). For the Romans to embrace a Jewish tradition and teaching (that is, if they were ever really aware of it at the time of Yeshua) seems nearly inconceivable.
Pilate "washed his hands clean" not because he wasn't guilty of sentencing Yeshua to death, but to demonstrate to the people that he was a just and understanding ruler than would listen to the people. Pilate was an opportunist. In shorter terms, Pilate was flexing his alleged cosmopolitan muscles. By giving the people choice to bring Barrabas out of prison it became a testament to the people that he ultimately gave them choice, it was Pilate alone that demonstrated such a valiant display of democracy (in his eyes). Barrabas served as a great reminder considering how terrible he was. Had Pilate released an unremarkable man from prison nobody would remember his display of prowess. Rather, all they would remember was that they followed their laws in executing a "false prophet". After all, Pilate couldn't have cared less who Yeshua was.
"Facts shouldn't shake anyone's theology except for hopefully bettering as more truth flows in. That does not discredit his messiahship for those that believe it. It only proves that there were things added, changed, etc."
In this case your "facts" are projections. Therefore proving absolutely nothing (but to yourself). We can debate all day long what was added or not added to NT but to claim the Messiah was a Roman creation is lacking any real study and judgement.
@benicho
ReplyDeleteI personally never said that Yeshua was an invention by the Romans, nor do I think so. The "facts" I am referring to are in regards to the my reference on the words of the NT as not being infallible -- they are not 100% unbiased recollections of what happened.
The second "fact" I am referring to is, yes, there were changes made to the text of the NT throughout the last 2000 years. This does not invalidate the books by any means, it does allow the reader to understand that there were changes and/or additions made.
It is good to know you are a history major. I have listened to lectures from religious historians/professors at Duke, Harvard, and Yale in regards to this topic and your views are different from other opinions I have heard. There are many areas we just won't know about, but additions/changes to the texts are not one of them.
Again, let it be known I never said Yeshua was a Roman invention. I don't believe that at all. I do believe Roman culture influenced people's perception of him as well as their writings about him. I also think some later additions/selections/changes came about from Roman influence. That does not invalidate the NT or Yeshua himself.
And if you think redactions make a text unreliable, consider that the Tenakh has at least as many redactions as the New Testament.
ReplyDelete(See Goliath's height, territory of Dan prior to Jacob, conflicting statements in Chronicles and Kings, dubious numbering of Israelites out of Egypt, for example.)
Even conservative Old Testament scholars allow for essential Mosaic authorship of the Torah, allowing for later edits.
Consistent standards are essential.
@Monique: "He's straddling more fences than I can imagine. He's bound to step on toes in the process."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. FFOZ needs to decide where they really stand and either go back to a One Law friendly position or go into full-tilt Bilateral Ecclesiology. If they are brave and true to their *real* convictions, then if they can endure whatever loss they incur. Better to get over with it now than exist in some no-mans-land just to stay financially afloat.
Judah, great post's KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! These people hurling insults dont know or have anything to do with the Messiah! Be strengthened and bold in Him!
ReplyDelete- Jesse
(I'll hold back my cheap shots @ ffoz)
@zayin i stand corrected, you're right, it wasn't you that made the claim, i falsely assumed you were taking that stance.
ReplyDeleteGiven what you have said it's hard to elaborate on what changes you're referring to. Quite honestly my knowledge pertaining to all the changes (large or small) made by the early followers to the NT whether they be Greek, Jew or Roman isn't sufficient enough to make any conclusive points. Also this isn't the place to go on about it. It is obvious that changes were made to the NT, as well as the OT (they were translated to a language that didn't even exist until at least the 7th century—Anglish). Reasons vary from translation inaccuracy to addition of text itself. I have seen myself variations of text that vary a good amount, but have yet to come across a translation that has altered the story beyond it's intention. I will say that you using the word "changed" promotes some nomenclature issues. Foremost being that "change" denotes these variations were made intentionally with the purpose of creating something that wasn't intended.
Another common misconception, not just here, but typically when talking to Jewish people (as well as ill-informed Messianics) is that the Romans changed many things. Take in consideration the Romans tried to stamp Christianity out for roughly 300 years. While various Emperors were more imperative about ridding the Roman world of Christianity than others it is certain that the Christians endured 3 centuries of "religious cleansing". Let us not forget that the Jews were allowed to practice Judaism as where Christians were singled out for their beliefs. To say that the Romans changed the original texts doesn't entirely make sense. Perhaps it was meant that the Roman Catholic church made changes regarding their theology. The Empire of Rome ≠ Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church does quite blatantly disregard certain laws in the Bible. I'll avoid going into Catholic theology or any other church theology as it's beside the point.
"I also think some later additions/selections/changes came about from Roman influence."
"Later" being the key word. These changes, selection and changes can be found in the catholic bible to this day. Compare the Roman Catholic 10 commandments to the Judeo list. Ever wonder why so many statues were created?
Somebody said:
ReplyDeleteFFOZ needs to decide where they really stand and either go back to a One Law friendly position or go into full-tilt Bilateral Ecclesiology. If they are brave and true to their *real* convictions, then if they can endure whatever loss they incur. Better to get over with it now than exist in some no-mans-land just to stay financially afloat.
I don't understand how people think they can characterize an organization in a few words. Nobody has it all figured out. FFOZ is a group of men who have certain convictions, and some of those differ with other groups and even differ internally. Can we try to stop with all the labels? We don't need everybody to fit in some box.
With that said, my point here is to defend FFOZ. I don't know 100% of their thoughts, I do not see them as "full-tilt" any direction but the bible. For another thing, they are not a synagogue or fellowship outlet. They are an educational organization. They have stated time and time again they are trying to follow the example of Yeshua and the Apostles. Not my intent to prolong this debate as I too think it is fruitless, but it's just so darn hard to stay away from. I read the above and cringed that people just want FFOZ to "fit in somewhere." Why, so they can be ignored? I don't get it. I think their fruit is excellent, spiritual and physical resources. Let's use all of this energy and continue to move forward. We all need each other. For reproof (maybe a little less of it), for support and for offering ideas. I get a lot to digest from reading everybody's blogs and I enjoy it. I don't know everyone speaking up here personally and I hope I am not coming across harsh, just trying to express some thoughts. The ironic thing is that I dislike super long comments, and here I am with one of my own. Sorry!
Cliff
@zayin, you're right, i falsely assumed those were your comments and that you were agreeing, my apologies.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately neither of us have the knowledge or resources to compare the oldest known NT writings to modern day bibles so it kind of makes this debate a bit moot. English wasn't even a language until (arguable) at least the 7th century. Even so it wasn't translated from Latin for another 7 centuries. To say there were changes is obvious, the Bible as a whole has been translated into the vernacular of many peoples. I understand what you're saying about changes, however I'm thinking there is a nomenclature issue at hand. Anybody who has read the NT can tell there are translation errors. These can be considered changes. What I'm assuming you mean by changes are intentional changes made to change the outcome of the stories within. You'll have to elaborate on the Roman influence you're referring to which have crept into NT, I very well could be overlooking something. Who knows. It brings me to my next point in nomenclature issues however...
Something that seems to be a common misconception amongst many Jews and Messianics (including gentiles) I've talked with is that the Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church get confused. The time that the Roman Catholic church overlapped with the Roman Empire is relatively short (approximately 150 years). The Empire of Rome waged a religious war on Christians for nearly 3 centuries for heresy (for the sake of this we'll say 50AD-325 AD).
Perhaps the influences you're referring to pertain to Roman Catholic theology, which isn't worth expanding on much. The Catholic bible and 10 commandments vary greatly from even mainstream Christianity.
I just reviewed FFOZ's tefillin booklet which was written by Toby Janicki. I think the general intent of their organization is fairly well encapsulated in the review.
ReplyDelete" I think the general intent of their organization is fairly well encapsulated in the review."
ReplyDeleteWhich of course is keep sitting on the fence and continue duping unsuspecting people. They should have started a political entity instead.
When reading the news today about the Israeli Labor party, curiosity got the better of me and I accessed this:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel
We should not be too surprised to see a kind-of manifestation of this in the broad Messianic community.
Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel
So does this thread prove that everyone in Messianic Judaism really does have a "Jewish soul" ? < grin >
When we think in terms of parliamentary politics, too many of us (Americans) are conditioned by the example of the British, whose major parties are principally the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIn Israel, the Labor party which dominated the spectrum for many decades, with Ben Gurion onward, is now a rump of its former self. Even Likud split to become Kadima.
I think it is safe to say that the Messianic model is more Israeli than we like to think. The list on Wikipedia (which is reliable as Wikipedia can be) actually included parties that will never sit in the Knesset.
And now they even started to call each other "racist" and "supersessionist." LOL!
ReplyDeleteThe more things change, the more they remain the same.