Messianic Judaism

[lutherangirl]

I was just wondering how many people on this site that are Messianic Jewish come from a Jewish household or converted later in life? I've always felt some kinship to Judaism; however, it seems very hard to follow if not raised up this way. I mean regards to the holidays and laws. Sorry if the terminology in this post is off. I don't mean to offend anyone due to my lack of the proper words.

Michelle

 

[libertarianwhacko]

I fell madly in love with Judaism during a mid life crisis. When I say madly, I mean I literally thought I was going out of my mind. I grew up in New York City, went to a predominantly Jewish college (Queens) and most friends were Jewish. So a certain attitude toward life I picked up in youth seems to have somehow made the religion make a lot of sense: worship by means of the study of scripture, developing a sense of holiness in everyday life, praising g-d at every opportunity, letting him provide for whatever material wealth I may miss out on by not working on the sabbath, etc. I do not think I can explain this properly: I guess you had to be there. I studied for conversion under a local rabbi and continually teach myself Hebrew and Yiddish.

I had been a follower of Indian guru Meher Baba for twenty years and lost my faith. I did not want to return to the atheism of college days...I do not like that side of myself, or that side of other people, for that matter. My wife also lost her faith and returned to the fundamentalist Christianity of her childhood. We agreed to home school both children as Christians. Both excelled at Christian colleges. It has been a very interesting two decades. I played organ at church and my wife started celebrating sabbath evening with me. Our tall, gorgeous daughter, 29, is a missionary in Malawi (She needs a husband, by the way). During the same mid life crisis, I became anti abortion, rabidly so. That and a lifelong political conservatism help me fit in better with a very large clan of southern in-laws. My interest in polygyny is very recent, even though I have always known that most men would make rotten husbands and most women would make just fine wives. We are planning to check out a messianic congregation in nearby Johnson City.

 

[lutherangirl]

I fell madly in love with Judaism during a mid life crisis. When I say madly, I mean I literally thought I was going out of my mind. I grew up in New York City, went to a predominantly Jewish college (Queens) and most friends were Jewish. So a certain attitude toward life I picked up in youth seems to have somehow made the religion make a lot of sense: worship by means of the study of scripture, developing a sense of holiness in everyday life, praising g-d at every opportunity, letting him provide for whatever material wealth I may miss out on by not working on the sabbath, etc. I do not think I can explain this properly: I guess you had to be there. I studied for conversion under a local rabbi and continually teach myself Hebrew and Yiddish.

I had been a follower of Indian guru Meher Baba for twenty years and lost my faith. I did not want to return to the atheism of college days...I do not like that side of myself, or that side of other people, for that matter. My wife also lost her faith and returned to the fundamentalist Christianity of her childhood. We agreed to home school both children as Christians. Both excelled at Christian colleges. It has been a very interesting two decades. I played organ at church and my wife started celebrating sabbath evening with me. Our tall, gorgeous daughter, 29, is a missionary in Malawi (She needs a husband, by the way). During the same mid life crisis, I became anti abortion, rabidly so. That and a lifelong political conservatism help me fit in better with a very large clan of southern in-laws. My interest in polygyny is very recent, even though I have always known that most men would make rotten husbands and most women would make just fine wives. We are planning to check out a messianic congregation in nearby Johnson City.

Thanks for sharing your story. It sounds like you had quite a journey with your faith. From reading your post it sounds like growing up with Jewish friends made it easier to understand the religion. I hope you and your wife find the right church. That's so awesome that your daughter is a missionary; I'm sure you and your wife are very proud of her!

Blessings,
Michelle

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

I was just wondering how many people on this site that are Messianic Jewish come from a Jewish household or converted later in life? I've always felt some kinship to Judaism; however, it seems very hard to follow if not raised up this way. I mean regards to the holidays and laws. Sorry if the terminology in this post is off. I don't mean to offend anyone due to my lack of the proper words.

Michelle

I am much like you in feeling a 'kinship' with Messianic Judaism. When we lived in a different area we attended a messianic group occasionally and our church home was very encouraging in having gentile Christians learn the "jewishness" of the faith they confess. They taught on the significance of the holidays and other 'key' areas that IMO without understanding one can not understand large portions of the New Testament. After all, many of the books of the NT were written by Jews to other Jews. It wasn't needed to explain the Jewish background of an issue because it was expected that it would be known.

I have a personal hang-up on self-proclaimed "New Testament" believers, who feel that there is very little need to study the OT because "the old has past away" IMO one Can NOT fully understand the NT without knowing the OT.

Here are a few "helps" for getting an idea of various Jewish cultural info to gain insight perhaps, although not messianic in theology.
The Jewish Book of WHY- this book has the questions and the answers, but it will let you know up front that you can ask 3 different Rabbis and get 4 different answers. :
CHRIST IN THE PASSOVER WHY IS THIS NIGHT DIFFERENT? by Ceil and Moishe Rosen, members of the Jews for Jesus group.
CELEBRAT PASSOVER HAGGADAH, A Christian presentation of the traditional Jewish Festival by Joan R. Lipis - a personal favourite. A 'How to' for a Passover.
Also check out information about the traditional Jewish feasts and holidays at the Jews for Jesus website http://www.jewsforjesus.org/ and at Koinonia House website http://www.khouse.org/ .

Those are really just scratching the surface but give enough to give a start on learning more. Finding a Messianic Synagogue would be awesome (since they primarily will meet on Saturday it is easy to frequent on and still attend your home church), but they can be hard to find, plus there is more than one meaning to a "Messianic Jew"- most common is an ethnic Jew who is a 'Christian' or a non-Jew placing themselves in the practice of a christian-jew, then there is a Jew who is fully expecting the Messiah to come soon but does not believe Jesus of the NT is the Messiah. The second is less common but I have run into that so I wanted to pass that on. Also some Messianic Synagogues can seem like the "bandaid" for mixed-marriages where one is a Jew and the other is Christian and that messianic synagogue is where they can be both without 'compromising'.

 

[Mark C]

Hi Michelle, I guess I should at least comment, since most here would probably think my house would fall into the "Messianic Judaism" category even though I wouldn't use that label myself. (Since He was prophesied to be a 'branch', Hebrew word netzir, and we were to be "grafted in", there are variants on that terminology that I do like. I have a friend who prefers the term "TOBE", for Torah-observant Believers, and I've even been called a "Scripture Oriented Believer" from time to time. )

By now I've written enough here on BF about other topics, from His Appointed Times and Sabbaths and marriage, licenses and Caesar, to food, to healing, and so on, to His statement that, "I change not," that no reasonable-length statement of faith would add much more. But I will say that there are some things in the Brit Hadasha (new covenant writings) that help clarify any distinctions with both "modern Judaism" ('rabbinic' or Pharasaic*) and "modern Christianity". Most are outlined in Matthew 5:17-19, where our Savior says that He came to change "not one yod or tiddle" of His "torah" so long as "heaven and earth" still exist, and then He reiterates the warnings of Deut. 4:2, and 12:32, about trying to change His Word for Him. The whole chapter of Matthew 23, among others, shows His disdain for those who did persist in changing His Word anyway, and replacing the "commandments of YHVH" with the pagan "traditions of man" -- all of them variants of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Unfortunately, most 'church tradition' isn't limited to "forbidding to marry".

I've come to like the term "Church of NO Traditions" as well.

Blessings in His Name YHVH,

Mark


--------------------------
* There is a modern sect of Judaism who call themselves "Karaites" that do not accept the so-called "oral torah" or Talmud for that reason. While they generally do NOT accept that Yahushua of Nazereth, the Netzir, is the Mashiach or Messiah, they often do try to claim Him as a Karaite!

 

[lutherangirl]

T-C's Rebeka,

I like your suggestion about going to a Messianic Synagogue. I know just from my experience with my own church that you have to go for quite some time before you every fully understand all the ins and outs of that denomination. It wasn't until I started working at the church that I truly knew the differences between the LCMS, ELCA, and WELS. Most Lutherans don't know that these three different Synods exist. I'm sure this is true with every denomination that has split off from each other.

Mark C,
It sounds like there are many branches in Judaism as well as Synods for Lutherans. I find it interesting that most of us on this site are discovering the "Berean" approach to our faith, however for me, I find myself still reverting back to what I've been brought up with. I mean my uncle is a missionary and knows about 13 different languages and has been all over the world; however, he basically still celebrates the same holidays and such he did growing up.

I'm just wondering if all the different 'branches' of Christianity or Messianic Judaism confuse people who weren't brought up knowing anything about our loving Savior. I mean sometimes I can get so caught up in my own head studying that I forget to do the greatest of commands "Love each other as I have loved you." I just can't stop thinking that we still aren't doing what He set out for us to do in the way He intended.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

1st Peter 4:16:

Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

For this reason, and a few other similar passages, I accept the name Christian.

I confine in my personal lexicon the term "Messianic" to those believers who are racially Israelites and who seek to practice the faith as they are covenanted to follow by agreements with God made by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel) and Moses.

 

[Mark C]

1st Peter 4:16:Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

Funny, The Scriptures says it this way,

I Kefa 4:16
But if one suffers being Messianic, let him not be ashamed, but let him esteem Elohim in this matter."

[Aside: The term Χριστιανός -- translated as "Christian" -- did not come into use until well after the time of the Apostle Kefa/Peter, and is probably NOT in the original letter. The translation I find most credible translates the presumed original wording as "matith (of the) Melech", or Disciples of the King.]


The next line is what is more important than any label, I contend:

I Kefa 4:17

Because it is time for judgment to begin at the House of Elohim. And if firstly from us, what is the end of those who do not obey the Good News of Elohim?

I'm thankful to be "grafted in", whatever my racial heritage might be. Wild branches can still bear good fruit, when they are cultivated by the Master.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[Hugh McBryde]

1st Peter 4:16:Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

Funny, The Scriptures says it this way,

I Kefa 4:16
But if one suffers being Messianic, let him not be ashamed, but let him esteem Elohim in this matter."

Um, no, this way: "khrē-stē-ä-no's." If you want a "pronouncer" there is actually a javascript player at "Blue Letter Bible" in the link provided, and you can hear it pronounced.

The term Χριστιανός -- translated as 'Christian' -- did not come into use until well after the time of the Apostle Kefa/Peter, and is probably NOT in the original letter. The translation I find most credible translates the presumed original wording as "matith (of the) Melech", or Disciples of the King."

If there is an Aramaic or Hebrew version of 1st Peter, and it uses the term, so be it. So far, the only Aramaic New Testament I know of has an incomplete version of Acts, and no letters from Peter. In Acts chapter 11, the transliteration of the word in Aramaic that the KJV translates as "Christian" (From the Greek khrē-stē-ä-no's - Χριστός) is "Kristyane."

You are not free to "exceed what is written." The original uses a word pronounced most like "Christian" and even the Aramaic version of Acts 11 reflects that. The simple truth is the term was in use when Luke wrote Acts, and early in the Church's history. It was apparently a derogatory term invented by non believers in Antioch to hurl as an epithet at those who believed. Those who believed, as Peter indicates, regarded it as a blessing to be derided with a term referring to their LORD. It was Greeks naming believers a word in their own tongue, "khrē-stē-ä-no's - Χριστός." They were not calling them "matith (of the) Melech." Antioch is a city planted by Alexander the Great.

I suppose anyone can refer to themselves as "Messianic." As long as you believe in Christ as Savior (Jesus or Yeshua) and rely on him for salvation, and call him King, you're good. The scriptural division is that of the gentiles and the Israelites. Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcision, who are gentiles. Peter is the apostle to the circumcision, who are Israel and their proselytes. It is Israelites in Israel who have a contract with God to follow his word in the most complete fashion. I think we all have that mandate but as I have noted before, less of the law applies to me in a way that changes my behavior because I am one who was never a convert to the faith of Judaism.

Based on History and Scripture, I am a Christian. The "uncircumcision." Racial Israelites with a saving faith would seem to me to be "Messianics," or the "circumcision."

 

[Mark C]

...

The term Χριστιανός -- translated as 'Christian' -- did not come into use until well after the time of the Apostle Kefa/Peter, and is probably NOT in the original letter. The translation I find most credible translates the presumed original wording as "matith (of the) Melech", or Disciples of the King."

If there is an Aramaic or Hebrew version of 1st Peter, and it uses the term, so be it...

I have a translation (OSE-EI, The Word of Yah: The King's Covenant) which makes that claim. I do not have access to copies of the original text; so be it. It is a virtual certainty, however, that Peter did NOT pen his letter in Greek.


[That one, BTW, is the one which translates the same text as:

But if one of you suffers for being a matith of The King, let him not be ashamed...

I remain personally persuaded that the Greek words translated as variants of Christos, Kristianos, etc, post-date the original Letter(s) by at least a century or so, and were thus probably put there by people who felt free to "exceed what was Written."

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Mark,

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.

Acts 11 is a critical passage. I said when I cited Peter, that there were "other passages." The primary passage for the name "Christian" is Acts 11 as it is first in history, and the passage makes that specific claim about itself. Luke the Physician writes that in Antioch those that believed were referred to as khrē-stē-ä-no's (Χριστός). This is not a translation of the name given to the early believers, it is the literal actual word that was used. We know that to be the claim of scripture. We have no reason to believe that Acts was written FIRST in any language other than Greek, and even if it was, and that original Syriac text was lost to us, the word was spoken by Greeks, coined by Greeks in a Greek city. It's locked up pretty tight.

If the Syriac original used another word, we even know what it was, it was "Kristyane." That pronunciation indicates that the term had it's roots in the Greek, as "Christ" is a Greek word.

I remain personally persuaded that the Greek words translated as variants of Christos, Kristianos, etc, post-date the original Letter(s) by at least a century or so, and were thus probably put there by people who felt free to 'exceed what was Written.' "

Mark, this 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. We don't have record of your claim because God did not mean us to. He also, as the scriptures say, does not wish for you to insert a speculation, however well founded, into the text to suit yourself or your sensibilities.

The quote "Exceed what was written" is from Corinthians. (NASB) (1st Corinthians 4:6)

 

[mrscottyl]

Shalom y'all,
I guess I should say something in regards to this discussion. I have Jewish blood flowing through my veins, however, most of my practicing Jewish relatives are Reformed, and thus in disagreement with myself. I grew up in the Church of Christ, and have been booted out not once but twice. Many people consider me Messianic, but I do not believe really in any label except for Disciple. Labels serve to divide and cause schisms, of which First Corinthians chapter 1 condemns. I have a list on Yahoo where both polygyny and Scripture are discussed, and with what most would say is a Messianic tone. (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/remnantsounds)

I went to both a Christian University studying Theology and a Preaching school, and have also studied with a Chabad house as well as a Sephardic Jewish Rabbi and took courses under Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute. To the Jews, I am too Christian, and to the Christians I am too Jewish, and all I desire to be is a Disciple of the Word. I am always open to discussing Scripture with anyone, however, I refuse to debate. I know that there are those, even on this list, that do not like me, but I do not seek to please men and women but only the Messiah.

Scott

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I desire that we be accurate. It is my personal tendency to see Israelites who believe, as "Messianic." I regard gentiles who believe as "Christian." In any case, I don't see it as worthwhile or scripturally accurate to discard the term "Christian" in favor of "Messianic" if one is not Israelite in their racial origins.

 

[Corey]

The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew as a result of hundreds of years of captivity and occupation. Jews spoke Aramaic and Greek, Romans spoke Greek and Latin, but you can see Greek was the common language of the day. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). The Jews couldn’t speak Hebrew much less read it, except for a select few. You will remember that when Jesus cried out from the cross, "Eli, Eli, LAMA, SABACHTHANI"(Matthew 27:46-47). Jesus was citing the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1 and no one there seemed to understand it. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. No one at the cross could understand the Hebrew words Jesus spoke. (Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, but not the same.) If you read (Mathew 27:37-50) you can see it was the Jews that couldn’t understand him. It would only make sense if God wanted to publish the gospel to all the people, he would do it in their common language. To make the assertion that Peter was written in Hebrew would defy the textual evidence and the historical evidence. This theory is based on imagination with not one ounce of evidence to support it. If any one has this evidence it has been hid from all of us who have spent years researching linguistics and textual criticism. So, from the textual, historical and theological evidence I believe Hugh is sound in his analysis.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I would go one step further and say that Hugh's assertion that the translations we have are the ones we are meant to have is of paramount importance to our faith. How could we believe that God could inspire a flawless Word only to let man corrupt it later? How can we allow books written by men, lexicons and commentaries, to take precedence over what we claim we believe is the inspired word of God. I'm not saying word studies and alternate translations aren't valuable teaching tools or a legitimate area for theologians or that there isn't context to be considered. But those things can't be allowed to alter what God has given us directly.

 

[cnystrom]

I am in agreement with Scott on this one. One does not have to perform sophisticated textual analysis to understand the principle in 1 Cor 1: 10-17. As Christians we are to identify ourselves with Christ and only Christ. The only value in identifying ourselves in other way is to reach those groups to bring them to Christ, not unto division amongst ourselves.

Chris

 

[Mark C]

The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew as a result of hundreds of years of captivity and occupation. Jews spoke Aramaic and Greek, Romans spoke Greek and Latin, but you can see Greek was the common language of the day. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). The Jews couldn’t speak Hebrew much less read it, except for a select few.

No sale, Corey. 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.

And no offense, but the claim that when our Savior taught in Hebrew and Aramaic, or quoted Scripture in the original Hebrew, that He must have been unintelligible to those He taught is just plain ridiculous.

Such a claim flies in the face of obvious contradictions -- like John 19:20-22 -- as well!

 

[Mark C]

I would go one step further and say that Hugh's assertion that the translations we have are the ones we are meant to have is of paramount importance to our faith. How could we believe that God could inspire a flawless Word only to let man corrupt it later?

I could not disagree more.*

[ * Any programmer understands that language constrains thought. There literally are some concepts that don't translate well, whether it is computers or fallen men. It is simply not possible to translate any language into any other in every case without error. ]

How can we allow books written by men, lexicons and commentaries, to take precedence over what we claim we believe is the inspired word of God. I'm not saying word studies and alternate translations aren't valuable teaching tools or a legitimate area for theologians or that there isn't context to be considered. But those things can't be allowed to alter what God has given us directly.

I know of people, zephyr, who claim that the "Authorized Version", the KJV, is the "Inspired Word of God" -- that "God has given us directly". They go so far as to claim that IT must be correct even when that translation obviously contradicts the far older texts on which it is presumably based. (There are hundreds of examples; places like Acts 12:4, Eccl. 2:8, etc, etc, etc.) I have met more people who believe that He actually taught in the King James English than I would have thought possible, and that is not a joke.

Either we choose to be like the Bereans, or we do not. I contend that ANY honest examination or comparison of the various English translations of the Bible will reveal multiple contradictions, and show that there is NO single English translation of the text which is without error. When Yahushua said (Matthew 5:17-19) that "not one yod or tiddle" of His "torah" would pass so long as heaven and earth still existed, He was referencing what He Himself Wrote. THAT is what He "gave us directly", and then came to teach "with Authority" (Matthew 7:29) -- because men had ALREADY begun to try to "corrupt" it, by "adding to," and "subtracting from," -- JUST LIKE THEY HAVE SINCE THEN as well. Why do you think He warned so frequently of deception, of what "you have heard it said"?

What "God has given us directly" was not Written originally in English, and it neither was it written nor spoken originally in Greek. Speaking specifically for myself, I have long since given up the mistaken idea that one can claim to truly understand what He has Written without seeking to read and understand it in the original language.



PS> And the original point here was about LABELS. If it is hard to translate concepts about the Almighty from one language to another without the possibility of error -- HOW MUCH MORE SO the idea of categorizing "beliefs" about Him with a single English word?

 

[mrscottyl]

I would go one step further and say that Hugh's assertion that the translations we have are the ones we are meant to have is of paramount importance to our faith. How could we believe that God could inspire a flawless Word only to let man corrupt it later? How can we allow books written by men, lexicons and commentaries, to take precedence over what we claim we believe is the inspired word of God. I'm not saying word studies and alternate translations aren't valuable teaching tools or a legitimate area for theologians or that there isn't context to be considered. But those things can't be allowed to alter what God has given us directly.

Zephyr,
We are human. We make mistakes. I have worked as an editor for a newspaper, and know that even the best writers make mistakes. Simple typos, letters being dropped or out of place, can actually make different words altogether. In my book, "What Is The Truth?", there were three editors that took a look at the book before I sent it to the publisher, not to mention I use spell checks on my word processor, but there are still mistakes that were missed.

Only the original writers were inspired. Those copying the original writings were not inspired. People make mistakes. If an unintentional mistake was made, and the next person copying it only had the copy with the mistake to make a copy with, then the mistake is copied. So if the person making the copy realizes there is a mistake in the only copy that they have, what were they supposed to do, try to figure out the intent of the previous copier who had made the mistake? Is that not like trying to read a hanging chad? Also, there are those who might have had theological differences with what was written, so as to decide to make a few changes to make sure that their beliefs were passed on. If you do no believe that this could happen, Luther did it in his version of Scripture. And when you go back and look and see that the Hebrew copies of Scripture have far fewer differences with each other as compared with the Greek copies, you see that the Greeks and those copying the Greek either were not as diligent as to not making any mistakes or were purposeful in making changes to fit their beliefs. So even though the copies and translations are not inspired, His disciples have the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) indwelling in them so as to lead them into all truth, which will never, and I repeat never, contradict Scripture.

Scott

 

[Corey]

[q

No sale, Corey. 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.

And no offense, but the claim that when our Savior taught in Hebrew and Aramaic, or quoted Scripture in the original Hebrew, that He must have been unintelligible to those He taught is just plain ridiculous.

quote]
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. It is a battle for superiority between two, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholics claim direct succession from the apostles and can actually make a case in history for this. So, the Eastern Orthodox Church had to one up them. They clamed they had an original Hebrew text of Matthew. I can assure you we in the scholar community have researched the claims and so far have found them lacking. We do not say Matthew and Revelation were written in Hebrew. We say they were written in Greek with portions of them in Aramaic. Now, Aramaic and Hebrew are different languages please do not equate the two.
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. Please read what I said before responding. I said when he quoted a portion of scripture in Hebrew while on the cross they didn’t understand him. If you deny this you obviously didn’t read the text I supplied. We know that Jesus taught in Aramaic and Greek and we know the Jews of his day couldn’t speak Hebrew except for a select few. We also know that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, which is a Greek copy of the Old Testament. It seems that Christ himself wasn’t as hung up on Hebrew as much as you are. If you read at least the basics on how our bible was transmitted through history you could gain a bit of knowledge on this subject and confidence in our scriptures. I advise you to read some scholarly works that have no invested interest in what you conclude and no pretext for their claims.