This will be expanded upon at a later time, but I'd like to demonstrate really quickly what two of my favorite Christian sources say about the Torah. We will look more on what Replacement Theologians state at a later time. James Patrick Holding is a Christian Apologist who has been active for nearly 20 years in Apologetics. He has a cunning approach to riposte and is his points are exceptional in debating against Fundamental Atheism. The one area I find he is weak in is his understanding of the Torah. In his article www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html he comes to the conclusion that the Torah is not for today because as he states in his own words "What of verses that say the law is "for ever"? The word used in the Hebrew is 'olam and means, not exactly forever, but "in perpetuity." This is interesting. When going to the dictionary, what does "in perpetuity" mean? I have an Accounting degree. One form of a cash payment that we studied is known as a perpetuity, or a consol. Its a form of payment with no maturity date and is paid forever. Wikipedia describes it as follows "A perpetuity is an annuity that has no definite end, or a stream of cash payments that continues forever." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuity According to http://www.investorwords.com/2481/in_perpetuity.html in perpetuity means "forever." According to free dictionary it means "For an indefinite period of time; forever." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perpetuity Mr. Holding should get a better understanding of what in perpetuity means. I would highly recommend we not play with this word.
Dr. Glenn Miller also has the same take on olam. He was approached with the question here "http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah. "All of this is in direct contrast to the teaching of the New Testament, particularly of Paul and the authors of Hebrews. How can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and both be inspired and G-d remain immutable?" The simple answer to this question is the only thing that has really changed in the New Testament is that Yeshua's priesthood overtakes the manmade levitical priesthood. That would have been the correct answer. Dr. Miller doesn't reach that conclusion. His opening statement reveals that his issue is with the Torah. "No one [in this paradigm community, remember!] disputes that God's ethical principles of love, fairness, and integrity are part of His eternal character and therefore, ethically normative for creatures of will throughout all the ages. Such principles are inherent within His character, which is--fortunately for us--reliably 'immutable'." Um, so olam means forever here, but not there? The context of the word olam needs to be talked about, not just demonstrating that it can mean a different thing in another context. Prefixes such as ha' and le' or ad' often accomodate the word olam when utilized in the Bible. No, in this paradigm community, we have a problem. This article runs into the problem of the logical fallacy of a double standard. He states that he has found at least 20 examples that olam does not mean forever in the Old Testament. Again, the trap that he falls into is he doesn't fully understand Jewish history and customs. He demonstrates this by calling Yeshua Son of David in another of his articles (while he is that, he never mentions to Jews that he is from the line of David but has not fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David yet). Further we reach the irony of Dr. Glenn Miller's article in that he is siding with the rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament! His argument present that the rabbis never interpreted the word olam to mean forever. For instance he lays claim to "Three: Many rabbi's considered vast and important areas of the Law to be annulled or inoperative in the Coming Age. They looked forward to a New Torah, from God through the Messiah, connected sometimes with the New Covenant of Jeremiah (sounds a bit like the NT claims, doesn't it?)" This doesn't make it the case however. And as I've mentioned before, and perhaps Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't know this, the Hebrew word for "New" here is the same that the Jews used for the "renewed moon." More abomination of Jewish customs here - "Obviously the 'as strict as biblical law' (some rabbi's) and 'stricter than biblical law' (Qumran, Jubilees) positions would have a major problem with there being no ark and with non-Israelites being allowed into the priesthood…but that's THEIR interpretive problem (smile)…." When does this ever happen? Non-israelites have never entered into the priesthood. The priest at the current moment is Yeshua. So who in the world is he talking about? The Catholics? Also, he believes that there have been 4 different sets of laws "[This, btw, is one of the main challenges--in my opinion--that later (and modern) followers of "Moses" must face. When it is held that the Law must still be observed, we still must ask the question of 'which version of the Law'? We have--in this simple example of the sanctuary alone--at least four different 'sets of law': Mosaic (ark, tabernacle), Davidic/Solomonic (ark, Temple), Post-exilic (no-ark, Temple--but not built to the same 'revealed' specs as the Solomonic one, though); and Post-NT (no-ark, no-Temple)…It is not enough to say that only the unchanged laws (e.g., diet, Sabbath, festivals?) are to be observed today--this would simply ibe an "admission of guilt"--that (some of) the Law DID change, and that the theological grounding for 'torah immutability' is questionable and/or relative. It is not theologically obvious how one could ever be considered obeying the Law of Moses without a central, earthly sanctuary--even with clever rabbinic hermeneutics, most of which necessarily presuppose a 'change in the surface of the code'. And when you divide the 'surface' (text) from the 'core' (intent/spirit), you immediately fall into the same methodological camp as the early Christians. And, at that point, you're no longer arguing from major theological, structural differences--now you're just 'haggling over details'…] " Really? Does he take into account that these laws have not changed, but only refined? No, the content of the changing of the principles has been completely ignored within this whole writing. He is only utilizing the common ploy of what Replacement Theologians utilize which is that the temple determines whether or not the promises to Israel are to be in place today. The temple is only utilized for certain instances within the Torah, neither having anything to do with the festivals (many which were celebrated in Jewish homes, but could be celebrated at the temple), the Sabbath (what Biblical verse supports the changing of the sabbath based on the falling of the temple? We certainly didn't see this happen with the first fall of the Temple in the Babylonian exile) and kosher law (which again, had nothing to do with the standing of the temple, and is often mentioned by Messianics that even Rav Shaul taught kosher law). What the rabbis state about this is irrelevant. A closer read on rabbinical writings demonstrates that the rabbis believed that God needed to follow the rabbinical commentary, and this demonstrates that there were motives for trying to change the Old Testament that Dr. Glenn Miller has not mentioned in his article. For this reason, one is compelled to take most of what Dr. Glenn Miller says with a grain of salt.
Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't make mention of what we are to turn to if we do not have the Torah. But James Patrick Holding does. He states very directly "If one then happens to ask, "On what basis do you then continue to say that these laws are still valid morally?" -- beyond the "all agree" level of things like murder, and in the category of things like homosexuality and adultery -- " Really, these are all agreed? Seems to me that there is a huge problem with both of these matters even within the church. Secondly, where in the Bible is a democracy stated? God chooses the principles we live by, not man. He continues further "the answer is that when a superior writes a contract, even if you are not a party to it, the contract will still give you an idea what values the superior holds to." So we are under a covenantal relationship that Mr. Holding agrees that we have entered into with God. However, the absurdity can be seen when we take away the covenantal relationship with God, since we are not a party to it anymore. Which covenant do we enter into? If Yeshua is the word, then he becomes the living Torah. Does he then abolish himself? Are we not included into a relationship with God, but then at the same time live by it just because it might make God happy, but we're not exactly sure because it doesn't apply anymore? (how could that be if we are no longer under his contract, wouldn't he be happy that we get rid of these unnecessary habits? Especially if it was a dividing wall as Holding holds Ephesians 2:15 to mean?). What to say of the verses that say that we should worship God forever? Does that mean only a limited time? What about the verses that say God is forever? Does that also mean that he exists for a limited time? Then is God really God? These are some major obstacles that must be faced by Supersessionists, obstacles that can not be overcome. Words have fixed meanings, and one can not apply a definition whenever one feels like it.
The above mentioned gentlemen are very good at giving many arguments. What they both lack is a degree in Ancient Near East Languages. So lets see what someone who does have a degree in ANE languages states. Looking further at someone prominent who has a THOROUGH understanding of Ancient Near East languages (in fact he has obtained a doctorate from New York University), one should take a look at Dr. Michael L. Brown, who in his book Our Hands are Stained with Blood, he takes a look at a few places that utilize the word olam. He makes no question about it, the word means forever in the places that he sites from the Old Testament. I will demonstrate these areas in the days to come, as I quote from his book. He also accurately states that unlike what Dr. Glenn Miller lays claim to, the Orthodox Jewish rabbis have taken claims from the Old Testament out of context time and time again, and have even added different words to the Old Testament to make their claims "more valid." Dr. Glenn Miller may present the rabbis in a light that they were "innocently" doing what they believe was correct, but again, his degree is not concentrated in Jewish studies or in Ancient Near East culture either. Its important to check the background of writers before making a determination of this magnitude regarding the Tanakh.
Lets reiterate what Yeshua states in Mattityahu 5:17-20 "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." JP Holding and Glenn Miller, you have had some terrific writings in the past that I've admired on various subjects, including the Christ Myth and many other issues too varied to count. Would you join the cause in uniting Jew and Gentile as One New Man, as One in the Body of the Messiah? Let us make sure our knowledge surpasses that of what the Pharisees of our day state in regards to the Torah.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
New Article Tomorrow!!!!
Okay, I'll have a new article up tomorrow. I am going to look at some of the tragic statements of our church today about the Tanakh, and show the tragic underpinnings of what Replacement Theology has resulted in today's churches. Additionally I will also begin more articles on the Talmud, and we will look at differences between the schools of hillel and shammai.
After looking at this we will resume back where we were focusing our attention on and go into lessons on what the Biblical feasts mean and their roles and how to celebrate them. I have to say that I have had to burn a majorly huge golden calf the last couple of weeks. It has been in the form of what some of my most revered Christian Apologists have stated. They have come in the form of supersessionists. Having knowledge to combat against even some of the foremost leading Apologists in this area has cleared the way for me to have a more Biblically foundational vision of what the Bible truly is.
I must also publicly denounce, and I may try to cover this later, my former viewpoints on Preterism as I have determined them to be not Biblically founded. I no longer believe that Nero was the anti-christ. I do not side with Futurism either. The Left Behind series, though the writers hearts seemed to be in the right place, is also not Biblically founded. I believe there is another side that is overlooked by both of these positions that is correct.
After looking at this we will resume back where we were focusing our attention on and go into lessons on what the Biblical feasts mean and their roles and how to celebrate them. I have to say that I have had to burn a majorly huge golden calf the last couple of weeks. It has been in the form of what some of my most revered Christian Apologists have stated. They have come in the form of supersessionists. Having knowledge to combat against even some of the foremost leading Apologists in this area has cleared the way for me to have a more Biblically foundational vision of what the Bible truly is.
I must also publicly denounce, and I may try to cover this later, my former viewpoints on Preterism as I have determined them to be not Biblically founded. I no longer believe that Nero was the anti-christ. I do not side with Futurism either. The Left Behind series, though the writers hearts seemed to be in the right place, is also not Biblically founded. I believe there is another side that is overlooked by both of these positions that is correct.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What do I think about Replacement Theology or Supersessionism?
This was definitely not something I thought I needed to address. However, the more I've studied on Replacement Theology and supersessionism, the more I believe it needs to be addressed. I would like to begin by stating that this form of theology is outright heresy. I do not believe in taking away anything from the Bible. Deuteronomy 4:2 states 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Matthew 5:17-18 equally encouraged by Yeshua states - 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished."
Everything has not been accomplished. Heaven and Earth have not passed away. Heaven and Earth will NOT pass away, but in Revelation, the same word for new "hadashah" is once again utilized, so heaven and earth will be renewed. Scripturally there is no argument. However, objections still arise from the side of Replacement Theology.
Two of these I will address today.
Some Christian Apologists assume that Ephesians 2:15 means that the Torah has been abolished. What is overlooked here is that when Christians do this, they are attempting to make a bona fide argument for the Ebionites who think that Rav Shaul's writings should not be followed because they contradict the teachings of Yeshua. So lets take a look at this argument in a fuller sense.
Lets take a look at Ephesians 2:15. What does it say? Look at Ephesians 2:14-16. It states " 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." In English we see from several of the versions it appears that the Torah is that which is being completely abolished according to the New International Version...which is largely associated with the King James Version. I believe the KJV to be a poorly translated version with some strong political motivations (again, good for another article).
Okay, the English Wycleffe version that we have states Ephesians 2:14-16 differently. "14 For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar,
15 enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a new man, making peace,
16 to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross [that he reconcile both in one body to God by the cross], slaying the enmities in himself. "
Another translation has dooms "by ordinances." What in the world does this mean?
We know from Romans 7:12 that it is stated that the Torah is holy, righteous and good. If its holy righteous and good, then it wouldn't make sense that this is the wall that is the barrier described here. Besides according to Numbers 15, there is no barrier at all, because both Gentile and Jew are under the instruction of God. So it has to be something else. So what is it? When we go back to the Greek we have the answer. According to http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf the word translated from Rav Shaul's writings is "
ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin." Whats interesting to note is that this same expression is utilized in 3 Macabbees 1:3 in relation to the "traditions of our fathers." The Rabbinical laws have been abolished. It is also utilized by Philo and Josephus as translated into the Greek for the same thing. And the term is not utilized in Genesis 26:5 "5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So what this must denote is that Yeshua tore down the man made Rabbinic traditions, the halakah, that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Thus it is worthy of note that the enmity existing between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down. In order to actually do away with the Torah, the word that Rav Shaul would have utilized in this instance would have been - ha patros nomos. We have also stated several times in some of my other writings a legalistic approach to the Torah vs. the following of the Torah due to love of God.
As Rabbi Eric Carlson, who contributed to Sid Roth's book The Incomplete Church states in a conversation between myself and himself regarding this enmity, "At the point in time that Eph 2 was written, Israel (Jews) had a relationship with God through His written word, just as it is today. Gentiles, were estranged and far off, they had no relationship with God through His written word. Because we had God and Gentiles did not there arose enmity (Hostility-animosity) between the two groups because one had God's word and one did not. The Law (Torah) wasn't done away with. "
Another statement that must be made is in regards to "Olam." Now many Supersessionistic theologians, Dr. Glenn Miller included, will rightfully admit that olam does not always mean forever. It actually means world. BUT LE'OLAM DOES MEAN FOREVER! In his article on olam, he wrongly sides with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who attempt to get rid of the Torah (funny how he never ACTUALLY quotes directly what the Rabbis state in regard to the Torah). In his references from the Talmud, he never states how they attempt to put the Rabbi's words over God's words. Rico Cortez on his website http://www.wisdomintorah.org/ has plenty of mention on the attempts of what the Rabbis were trying to do. There are no loose ends about it. It appears to me he has not formally studied very much on Jewish history. He mentions only the school of hillel, but also seems to completely disregard that there is another school of thought, the school of shammai. The school of shammai has the Pharisees that hated the Gentiles, the ones who Yeshua addresses "Woe to you o Pharisees". Rav Shaul was from the school of shammai. Yeshua was from the school of hillel. Messianic Jews know this, recognize it, and embrace it. He also believes the Pharisees to be "good Jews", but not all of them were. Yeshua who even followed the traditions of the fathers mentions many things that the Pharisees were doing incorrectly. Dr. Miller also does something that I conclude should never be done when addressing Jews. He calls Yeshua "Son of David." What I don't agree with this usage is this. Jews will read that and say, "Hey, we're right, the Messiah hasn't come yet because Mashiach ben David is the Messiah we're looking for." Well Mashiach ben David hasn't come yet. When addressing the Jews, we should utilize terms like, high priest, the tsadiyq, Elohim to get our point across of which role the Messiah has fulfilled up to this point. When Yeshua quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, he stops in the middle of what he is reading and states "these things have been fulfilled today." We should differentiate the Messiah's roles, since Mashiach ben Yosef has already come (the high priest), and Mashiach ben David (king of kings and lord of lords), the other role of Yeshua, is coming again. For this reason I think Dr. Michael L. Brown or even Rico Cortez is a better resource to utilize on how to witness to a Jew than Dr. Glenn Miller. Again, I generally agree with Dr. Glenn Miller on so much material, but just a few nitpicks that I need to make clear that I believe significantly affects his Theology and even his ability to reach out to Jews. Supersessionistic Theologians actually state wrongly that olam means in perpetuity in hopes that this would mean that it is not forever. There is no difference because in fact, in perpetuity means forever according to Webster's dictionary. Olam can be used in different circumstances, but in reference to God as accorded to something else, olam means forever. When it is utilized in instances regarding a contractual relationship between a man and another man, as it is done in Exodus 21:6, it means for the rest of the existing life of the person involved. So it does mean forever! In the instance of the slave having his ear pierced, what this means is that he will become a part of the family, which makes him a part of that family forever. The existing covenant with God does not change ever. The word of God or the Torah has become flesh. Does the word abolish the word? Does God have an end? If we are to conclude a univocality of the word olam, then he does have a beginning and an end. So this would disqualify the God of the Bible from being God. We know thats absurdity, but it is merely the fault of Replacement theologians. The duration of God is forever, and it follows consequently, since the breath of God (ruach hakodesh) also is eternal, that anything God states is eternal. When God makes a contractual agreement with mankind, it is permanent. Secondly, does God ever completely change his instruction? We have certain areas where points are refined, but at no point is anything necessarily taken away. Even on the sermon on the mount by Yeshua, points are added, but nothing is ever completely done away with (not even on the oaths, because it is mentioned in the Torah that it is not a sin to not take an oath, but nowhere it is stated that it is required to do so. Any oath that is made must be kept however, Yeshua sees no need to swear by an oath, so it is not a sin or a changing of the Torah to state that we no longer need to take one). Third, one point never covered by Glenn Miller on his article is the term "le'olam va'ed" which definitively means forever and forever. This is utilized in reference to God's covenants with Israel, which also includes the Torah. This also is utilized in reference to God. Even a generally accurate source has its flaws :). Most of the material from Glenn Miller is found here -http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html and I have to say I am completely amazed on the lack of attention that he put on the school of shammai, given his generally accurate outlook on the Bible. 90% of this guy's work I'm completely in favor of, and I usually enjoy his attention to detail.
Thus, we have two major flaws within Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that have been covered. I will expand on this later. But the major problem I have with Replacement Theology is straight from the Bible, the verse that proceeds from Matthew 5:17-18. Matthew 5:19 states "19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, its an all or nothing!
Everything has not been accomplished. Heaven and Earth have not passed away. Heaven and Earth will NOT pass away, but in Revelation, the same word for new "hadashah" is once again utilized, so heaven and earth will be renewed. Scripturally there is no argument. However, objections still arise from the side of Replacement Theology.
Two of these I will address today.
Some Christian Apologists assume that Ephesians 2:15 means that the Torah has been abolished. What is overlooked here is that when Christians do this, they are attempting to make a bona fide argument for the Ebionites who think that Rav Shaul's writings should not be followed because they contradict the teachings of Yeshua. So lets take a look at this argument in a fuller sense.
Lets take a look at Ephesians 2:15. What does it say? Look at Ephesians 2:14-16. It states " 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." In English we see from several of the versions it appears that the Torah is that which is being completely abolished according to the New International Version...which is largely associated with the King James Version. I believe the KJV to be a poorly translated version with some strong political motivations (again, good for another article).
Okay, the English Wycleffe version that we have states Ephesians 2:14-16 differently. "14 For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar,
15 enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a new man, making peace,
16 to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross [that he reconcile both in one body to God by the cross], slaying the enmities in himself. "
Another translation has dooms "by ordinances." What in the world does this mean?
We know from Romans 7:12 that it is stated that the Torah is holy, righteous and good. If its holy righteous and good, then it wouldn't make sense that this is the wall that is the barrier described here. Besides according to Numbers 15, there is no barrier at all, because both Gentile and Jew are under the instruction of God. So it has to be something else. So what is it? When we go back to the Greek we have the answer. According to http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf the word translated from Rav Shaul's writings is "
ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin." Whats interesting to note is that this same expression is utilized in 3 Macabbees 1:3 in relation to the "traditions of our fathers." The Rabbinical laws have been abolished. It is also utilized by Philo and Josephus as translated into the Greek for the same thing. And the term is not utilized in Genesis 26:5 "5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So what this must denote is that Yeshua tore down the man made Rabbinic traditions, the halakah, that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Thus it is worthy of note that the enmity existing between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down. In order to actually do away with the Torah, the word that Rav Shaul would have utilized in this instance would have been - ha patros nomos. We have also stated several times in some of my other writings a legalistic approach to the Torah vs. the following of the Torah due to love of God.
As Rabbi Eric Carlson, who contributed to Sid Roth's book The Incomplete Church states in a conversation between myself and himself regarding this enmity, "At the point in time that Eph 2 was written, Israel (Jews) had a relationship with God through His written word, just as it is today. Gentiles, were estranged and far off, they had no relationship with God through His written word. Because we had God and Gentiles did not there arose enmity (Hostility-animosity) between the two groups because one had God's word and one did not. The Law (Torah) wasn't done away with. "
Another statement that must be made is in regards to "Olam." Now many Supersessionistic theologians, Dr. Glenn Miller included, will rightfully admit that olam does not always mean forever. It actually means world. BUT LE'OLAM DOES MEAN FOREVER! In his article on olam, he wrongly sides with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who attempt to get rid of the Torah (funny how he never ACTUALLY quotes directly what the Rabbis state in regard to the Torah). In his references from the Talmud, he never states how they attempt to put the Rabbi's words over God's words. Rico Cortez on his website http://www.wisdomintorah.org/ has plenty of mention on the attempts of what the Rabbis were trying to do. There are no loose ends about it. It appears to me he has not formally studied very much on Jewish history. He mentions only the school of hillel, but also seems to completely disregard that there is another school of thought, the school of shammai. The school of shammai has the Pharisees that hated the Gentiles, the ones who Yeshua addresses "Woe to you o Pharisees". Rav Shaul was from the school of shammai. Yeshua was from the school of hillel. Messianic Jews know this, recognize it, and embrace it. He also believes the Pharisees to be "good Jews", but not all of them were. Yeshua who even followed the traditions of the fathers mentions many things that the Pharisees were doing incorrectly. Dr. Miller also does something that I conclude should never be done when addressing Jews. He calls Yeshua "Son of David." What I don't agree with this usage is this. Jews will read that and say, "Hey, we're right, the Messiah hasn't come yet because Mashiach ben David is the Messiah we're looking for." Well Mashiach ben David hasn't come yet. When addressing the Jews, we should utilize terms like, high priest, the tsadiyq, Elohim to get our point across of which role the Messiah has fulfilled up to this point. When Yeshua quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, he stops in the middle of what he is reading and states "these things have been fulfilled today." We should differentiate the Messiah's roles, since Mashiach ben Yosef has already come (the high priest), and Mashiach ben David (king of kings and lord of lords), the other role of Yeshua, is coming again. For this reason I think Dr. Michael L. Brown or even Rico Cortez is a better resource to utilize on how to witness to a Jew than Dr. Glenn Miller. Again, I generally agree with Dr. Glenn Miller on so much material, but just a few nitpicks that I need to make clear that I believe significantly affects his Theology and even his ability to reach out to Jews. Supersessionistic Theologians actually state wrongly that olam means in perpetuity in hopes that this would mean that it is not forever. There is no difference because in fact, in perpetuity means forever according to Webster's dictionary. Olam can be used in different circumstances, but in reference to God as accorded to something else, olam means forever. When it is utilized in instances regarding a contractual relationship between a man and another man, as it is done in Exodus 21:6, it means for the rest of the existing life of the person involved. So it does mean forever! In the instance of the slave having his ear pierced, what this means is that he will become a part of the family, which makes him a part of that family forever. The existing covenant with God does not change ever. The word of God or the Torah has become flesh. Does the word abolish the word? Does God have an end? If we are to conclude a univocality of the word olam, then he does have a beginning and an end. So this would disqualify the God of the Bible from being God. We know thats absurdity, but it is merely the fault of Replacement theologians. The duration of God is forever, and it follows consequently, since the breath of God (ruach hakodesh) also is eternal, that anything God states is eternal. When God makes a contractual agreement with mankind, it is permanent. Secondly, does God ever completely change his instruction? We have certain areas where points are refined, but at no point is anything necessarily taken away. Even on the sermon on the mount by Yeshua, points are added, but nothing is ever completely done away with (not even on the oaths, because it is mentioned in the Torah that it is not a sin to not take an oath, but nowhere it is stated that it is required to do so. Any oath that is made must be kept however, Yeshua sees no need to swear by an oath, so it is not a sin or a changing of the Torah to state that we no longer need to take one). Third, one point never covered by Glenn Miller on his article is the term "le'olam va'ed" which definitively means forever and forever. This is utilized in reference to God's covenants with Israel, which also includes the Torah. This also is utilized in reference to God. Even a generally accurate source has its flaws :). Most of the material from Glenn Miller is found here -http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html and I have to say I am completely amazed on the lack of attention that he put on the school of shammai, given his generally accurate outlook on the Bible. 90% of this guy's work I'm completely in favor of, and I usually enjoy his attention to detail.
Thus, we have two major flaws within Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that have been covered. I will expand on this later. But the major problem I have with Replacement Theology is straight from the Bible, the verse that proceeds from Matthew 5:17-18. Matthew 5:19 states "19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, its an all or nothing!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Was Luke really a Gentile? How we know that Luke was really a Jew.
Many people often cite Luke as being the only Gentile writer from the Bible. It is mentioned that his writings are directed to another Gentile who goes by the name of Theophilus. Is this really true?
Lets take a look at why people believe that Luke is a Gentile. Where does this viewpoint come from? This is more of a traditionalistic viewpoint than anything else. The book of Colossians is often cited as a major reason. In Colossians 4:10-11 it states " 10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me." The point that is attempted to be made is that since Luke is not mentioned as one of Paul's workers for the kingdom of God, it must necessarily follow that Luke is a Gentile. However, it is also recognized that Luke was never mentioned as someone who was actively involved with the preaching ministry. In fact, Luke in Colossians 4:14 is recognized as being Paul's physician. This does not preclude him from being a part of those who were of the circumcision.
A second argument that has been made for Luke being a Gentile is his name. Lucas is recognized as a Roman name. Interestingly enough, all of the people who are mentioned alongside Paul in Colossians 4:10-11 go by Roman names. As a matter of fact, those especially familiarized with the Messianic Jewish movement know that Paul is a Romans name, and that his real name is Rav Shaul. Peter's Hebrew name was Simon. The Jews who lived in the Diaspora used a Jewish name and a Roman name. The Roman name was used for conduct in business and the Jewish name was used while in the synagogue. So this could lend credence to the fact that Luke was simply a Roman name used by someone who was conducting business with a Gentile audience. So the arguments that are made about Luke being a Gentile are flimsy at best.
What arguments do we have that Luke was a Jew? There are several. We'll start with the oracle that Paul talks about in Romans. He states "What advantage has the Jew? “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). The rule was that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. With this in tact the burden is now against those arguing for the counterposition.
A second point to consider when evaluating this position is that Gentiles were never brought into the temple. This crime was punishable by death. It has been mentioned that Paul never did bring a Jew into the temple, but Trophimus was a Gentile who got Paul arrested for the belief that Paul was bringing Gentiles into the temple. It is mentioned by Luke that this never happened. He only brought Trophimus to Jerusalem. Being that Luke was not a controversial figure while travelling with Paul in Jerusalem, it must be thought that Luke was a Jew.
A third point is Luke's knowledge of the Temple. He had a very intimate knowledge of the rotating selection of Levitical Priests. He describes the position of the priest before the altar of incense where the angel appears to Zecharia in Luke 1:8-20. This knowledge convinces the author further that Luke was potentially a Levite. The knowledge of the Temple is given by Luke in a more grounded fashion than any writer within the New Testament.
The last point which demonstrates that Luke was a Jew is his intimate knowledge of Mary, the mother of Yeshua. He is able to relate the story of Yeshua's birth from the perspective of Mary and even mentions that he knew what was hidden in Mary's heart (Luke 2:19, 51). This view has led some to believe that Luke may have been the personal physician of Mary as well. Also, Paul never mentions anything regarding the story of Mary. It is therefore, unlikely that he got this information from Paul.
With these points in tact it becomes quite conclusive that Luke was indeed a Jew, not a Gentile.
Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Lets take a look at why people believe that Luke is a Gentile. Where does this viewpoint come from? This is more of a traditionalistic viewpoint than anything else. The book of Colossians is often cited as a major reason. In Colossians 4:10-11 it states " 10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me." The point that is attempted to be made is that since Luke is not mentioned as one of Paul's workers for the kingdom of God, it must necessarily follow that Luke is a Gentile. However, it is also recognized that Luke was never mentioned as someone who was actively involved with the preaching ministry. In fact, Luke in Colossians 4:14 is recognized as being Paul's physician. This does not preclude him from being a part of those who were of the circumcision.
A second argument that has been made for Luke being a Gentile is his name. Lucas is recognized as a Roman name. Interestingly enough, all of the people who are mentioned alongside Paul in Colossians 4:10-11 go by Roman names. As a matter of fact, those especially familiarized with the Messianic Jewish movement know that Paul is a Romans name, and that his real name is Rav Shaul. Peter's Hebrew name was Simon. The Jews who lived in the Diaspora used a Jewish name and a Roman name. The Roman name was used for conduct in business and the Jewish name was used while in the synagogue. So this could lend credence to the fact that Luke was simply a Roman name used by someone who was conducting business with a Gentile audience. So the arguments that are made about Luke being a Gentile are flimsy at best.
What arguments do we have that Luke was a Jew? There are several. We'll start with the oracle that Paul talks about in Romans. He states "What advantage has the Jew? “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). The rule was that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. With this in tact the burden is now against those arguing for the counterposition.
A second point to consider when evaluating this position is that Gentiles were never brought into the temple. This crime was punishable by death. It has been mentioned that Paul never did bring a Jew into the temple, but Trophimus was a Gentile who got Paul arrested for the belief that Paul was bringing Gentiles into the temple. It is mentioned by Luke that this never happened. He only brought Trophimus to Jerusalem. Being that Luke was not a controversial figure while travelling with Paul in Jerusalem, it must be thought that Luke was a Jew.
A third point is Luke's knowledge of the Temple. He had a very intimate knowledge of the rotating selection of Levitical Priests. He describes the position of the priest before the altar of incense where the angel appears to Zecharia in Luke 1:8-20. This knowledge convinces the author further that Luke was potentially a Levite. The knowledge of the Temple is given by Luke in a more grounded fashion than any writer within the New Testament.
The last point which demonstrates that Luke was a Jew is his intimate knowledge of Mary, the mother of Yeshua. He is able to relate the story of Yeshua's birth from the perspective of Mary and even mentions that he knew what was hidden in Mary's heart (Luke 2:19, 51). This view has led some to believe that Luke may have been the personal physician of Mary as well. Also, Paul never mentions anything regarding the story of Mary. It is therefore, unlikely that he got this information from Paul.
With these points in tact it becomes quite conclusive that Luke was indeed a Jew, not a Gentile.
Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Is Galatians 3:25 in contradiction to what Yeshua says in Matthew 5:17-20?
This question basically can be answered very simply by looking at some translation issues. Lets first look at what Matthew 5:17-20 states. 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
It is decisively certain here that Yeshua was telling us to practice the Torah. As Christians are aware, the word used for "the Law" here is the Torah. What they're not aware of is that the Torah means the Teachings. We will look more at some issues regarding the Torah vs. Talmudic or Oral Traditions of the Jews in later writings.
Galatians 3:25 lends an interesting perspective on the Torah by Paul. According to Paul in Galatians it is stated "25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Like we did with Matthew 5:17 which is often mistaken by Replacement Theologians unless taken in its exact context, we arrive at one of two conclusions about Paul. Either Paul is in direct contradiction of Yeshua's teachings and he is not to be followed (hence the Ebionites are justified in rejecting the letters of Paul), or Paul followed suit of what Yeshua's teachings actually mean and we are to follow his teachings as an extension of Torah writing.
There are a few of Pauls writings such as Romans 10:4 which have been improperly applied to state that Yeshua is the termination of the law. The correct translation of the word "end" is the goal of the law (not the exact getting rid of the law in the sense that it is no longer to be followed). We will for our sake today concentrate only on this verse in Galatians as it is one of the more commonly cited verses to the termination of the following of the Torah.
First of all, what does Paul state in Galatians 3:5-25? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise 15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ.
17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[a] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
The entirety of this passage tells us several things. First, of all, Paul cites the Torah in this writing as authoritative of what he's trying to state. Interesting he would try to do that if he was actually trying to rid ourselves of it. Secondly it tells us that the Torah is to be followed and lived by and that our works will follow from our faith in Yeshua. I cited verses 11-12 in bold for a reason. If you notice today, Orthodox and Reformed Jews are often Atheists, and not even believers in Theism. They have taken the Torah as to something "just to do because it makes them feel good" and not something to actually LIVE by. The same thing was going on apparently during this time period before Rav Shaul ministered to these people. Thirdly that the Torah was never meant to be a salvational doctrine. Yeshua's sacrifice and blood atonement is the only salvational method that one could have received (read Leviticus 17, blood is the only salvation and atonement for sin). Lastly, it is not the Torah that is no longer to be followed. It is the mediator of the Torah that is not to be followed (hence the scribes). These are the people who are trying to put the man made Talmudic (Oral Tradition) system in place of what God had previously established within his promises. Paul mentions exactly as Yeshua does here, that the Torah is not in opposition to the newly established covenant and its promises. He mentions that the Torah has not been done away with and that it should be followed. The purpose of the Torah has changed. Because Yeshua died on the tree of life for us, we are no longer under the curse of the Torah, which is the death penalty (i.e. taken outside of the camp and stoned to death). We can still be cut off from his people though. We are no longer to perform sacrifices according to Galatians 3, because Yeshua has been put in place of that. Besides this the word used here for "the supervision" is taraa, which actually infers a plural form of the word for tutor or schoolmaster. In other words it would best be read as follows "Now that Yeshua has come, we are no longer under the schoolmasters of the law." The King James Version even utilizes the word "schoolmaster." Thus, it is important to be mindful of what Rav Shaul or Paul states here. We are not to abandon Rav Shaul's teachings. We are to apply them as it is an expansion of the Torah and as a writing intended to explain to us of the purposes of how the Torah fits into our lives now that Yeshua has come. Last point to make, if the Torah is no longer needed for today, what is sin? Sin doesn't exist today, and hence we have no need for a Messiah or Yeshua. Thus we see the final problem within the Replacement Theology and not taking the Bible as a whole to be followed.
It is decisively certain here that Yeshua was telling us to practice the Torah. As Christians are aware, the word used for "the Law" here is the Torah. What they're not aware of is that the Torah means the Teachings. We will look more at some issues regarding the Torah vs. Talmudic or Oral Traditions of the Jews in later writings.
Galatians 3:25 lends an interesting perspective on the Torah by Paul. According to Paul in Galatians it is stated "25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Like we did with Matthew 5:17 which is often mistaken by Replacement Theologians unless taken in its exact context, we arrive at one of two conclusions about Paul. Either Paul is in direct contradiction of Yeshua's teachings and he is not to be followed (hence the Ebionites are justified in rejecting the letters of Paul), or Paul followed suit of what Yeshua's teachings actually mean and we are to follow his teachings as an extension of Torah writing.
There are a few of Pauls writings such as Romans 10:4 which have been improperly applied to state that Yeshua is the termination of the law. The correct translation of the word "end" is the goal of the law (not the exact getting rid of the law in the sense that it is no longer to be followed). We will for our sake today concentrate only on this verse in Galatians as it is one of the more commonly cited verses to the termination of the following of the Torah.
First of all, what does Paul state in Galatians 3:5-25? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise 15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ.
17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[a] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
The entirety of this passage tells us several things. First, of all, Paul cites the Torah in this writing as authoritative of what he's trying to state. Interesting he would try to do that if he was actually trying to rid ourselves of it. Secondly it tells us that the Torah is to be followed and lived by and that our works will follow from our faith in Yeshua. I cited verses 11-12 in bold for a reason. If you notice today, Orthodox and Reformed Jews are often Atheists, and not even believers in Theism. They have taken the Torah as to something "just to do because it makes them feel good" and not something to actually LIVE by. The same thing was going on apparently during this time period before Rav Shaul ministered to these people. Thirdly that the Torah was never meant to be a salvational doctrine. Yeshua's sacrifice and blood atonement is the only salvational method that one could have received (read Leviticus 17, blood is the only salvation and atonement for sin). Lastly, it is not the Torah that is no longer to be followed. It is the mediator of the Torah that is not to be followed (hence the scribes). These are the people who are trying to put the man made Talmudic (Oral Tradition) system in place of what God had previously established within his promises. Paul mentions exactly as Yeshua does here, that the Torah is not in opposition to the newly established covenant and its promises. He mentions that the Torah has not been done away with and that it should be followed. The purpose of the Torah has changed. Because Yeshua died on the tree of life for us, we are no longer under the curse of the Torah, which is the death penalty (i.e. taken outside of the camp and stoned to death). We can still be cut off from his people though. We are no longer to perform sacrifices according to Galatians 3, because Yeshua has been put in place of that. Besides this the word used here for "the supervision" is taraa, which actually infers a plural form of the word for tutor or schoolmaster. In other words it would best be read as follows "Now that Yeshua has come, we are no longer under the schoolmasters of the law." The King James Version even utilizes the word "schoolmaster." Thus, it is important to be mindful of what Rav Shaul or Paul states here. We are not to abandon Rav Shaul's teachings. We are to apply them as it is an expansion of the Torah and as a writing intended to explain to us of the purposes of how the Torah fits into our lives now that Yeshua has come. Last point to make, if the Torah is no longer needed for today, what is sin? Sin doesn't exist today, and hence we have no need for a Messiah or Yeshua. Thus we see the final problem within the Replacement Theology and not taking the Bible as a whole to be followed.
How the church has become opposed to the Torah over the years
This will be an important lesson to both Christians and Jews. Many Christians have opposed the Jews over the years due to the fact that they did not want to follow the Torah. This has led up to present day conditions. The anti-Torah attitude has led to antisemitic sentiment, but one need only understand that that was heavily prevalent amongst the Romans in the first century. This attitude began with what people call the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, the writer of the epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Origen, etc. Generally speaking this sentiment was not heavily prevalent amongst the first 300 years of the church, as most all followed the Torah principles. Anti-semitism of the early writers mentioned above influenced the likes of Constantine the Great (280-337 A.D.); Saint Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 A.D.); Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.); Saint Jerome (374-419 A.D.); Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe (467-533 A.D.); Pope Innocent III (1160-61-1216 A.D.); Pope Pious IV (1499-15654 C.E.). Of principle, the most influential of the anti-semitic ideas was Constantine the Great. As stated this was the case until Constantine took over Rome in 325 A.D. At this point, the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Laodicea abolished the Torah and made it illegal to follow the Torah and for a Roman citizen to worship with the Jews. Between the time period of 341 A.D. to the 600s, the Torah was completely abolished.
One is compelled to know how this following came about. The Bar Kochba revolt which was the 2nd Jewish Revolt that ended in 135 A.D. began a principle rift that occurred between the Church and the Synagogue, but principally, this was due to the unwillingness of non-Jewish believers to suffer the wrath of imperial Rome. Jewish believers were willing to participate in the Bar Kochba Revolt, until Rabbi Akiva declared him to be the Messiah, at which point the Messianic Jews were no longer willing to fight alongside him. Of course this was lost to the Roman empire. The rise of what would be considered Orthodox Judaism by affected this. By 70 A.D., and even according to the Mishnah, it is recorded that after the death of Yeshua around 30 A.D. up until 70 A.D. that sacrifices by God were no longer being accepted. To keep some of its converts there was known as a benedition against the heretics, the Amidah, that was prayed in a few synagogues during the time period of Justin Martyr. This, unbeknownst to Roman churches were words that amounted to a curse against Messianic Jewish believers (the ones described in Acts), NOT directly aimed at the Roman church. This was taken out of context, as can be seen in the misunderstandings of Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. He states "To the utmost of your power you dishonor and curse in your synagogues all those who believe in Christ....In your synagogues you curse too those who through them have become Christians and the Gentiles put into effect your curse by killing all those who merely admit that they are Christians." Already anti-semitic in nature, Roman ideas fueled other writings such as the epistle of Barnabas which states "Take heed to yourselves and be not like some, piling up your sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it...(Epistle 4:6-7). These words have fueled what is known in today's terminology as Replacement Theology. Origen took this work farther by stating that legalism applied to the Jews, and set Jews as the enemy. Funny enough, Origen was excommunicated by the church. He would later have different disciples which included Gregory, Dionysus, Hieracas, Pamphilus, and Eusebius of the Nicene age. This replacement theology did not become prevalent in the church until Constantinople in 325 A.D., as can be seen in Constantine taking the covenant away from Israel and putting it on his own church in Constantinople.
Let us take a close look at Constantine. It will be interesting to most that Constantine was never even considered a Christian. He was never baptized until he was close to his deathbed. He took his son Cripus and had him put to death. In addition his wife Faustus was also ordered to death by Constantine. Constantine set up a "Theocratic" system of government in which Caesars were to take over the throne and establish the church in Constantinople, making it the centerfold. Through purely political purposes and through his paganistic ideology, this, in addition to the death of his family was established. It is noted that he actually built the Arch of Constantine and the arch was decorated in sacrifices to gods such as Apollo, Diana and Hercules, and contains no Christian symbolism whatsoever. Does anyone know where the worship on Sunday came about? Esoteric sun worship was to be acknowledged and this was what helped in uniting the Christians and non Christians to "venerate the day of the sun." This is lost to many Christians. Constantine was not a Christian, but rather a pagan.
Later this anti-semitism would expand to various other locations. The Catholic church demonstrated several examples of this. The Crusaders (11th and 12th century) theology supported the mass murder of Jews. This has spun off into what our generation has come to know in Bosnia as the "ethnic cleansing operations".
The Spanish Inquisition still holds Spain in bondage to many curses due to the shedding of innocent blood. Both campaigns were done "in the name of Yeshua and for the glory of God."
Antisemitism did not go away with the church of the Reformation period. Martin Luther, though having some good ideas within his 95 Theses such that everyone could own a copy of the Bible, made statements in such a manner that would hurt Jews. "Set Jewish synagogues on fire for the honor of God. God will see we are Christians when we get rid of the Jews. Likewise homes should be destroyed; they should be put in a stable; they are not heirs of promises of God and deserve to die. Deprive them of all prayer shawls, prayer books and communication, revoke all passports, stop them from doing all business, everything they possess we believe they stole and robbed from us. They do not have God's blessings, drive them out of the country ... get rid of them."
Many fail to realize that this statement would influence the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler is not usually a good name to pull up in a debate. However, if you'll focus in on what Hitler states you'll see this is definitively true. "I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on." Hitler later followed Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews. Martin Luther preached his last sermon against the Jews. Nazi leader Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say". Thus the beat goes on, and we still have a problem within our church today.
This problem I will hope to alleviate within my writings. We should all seek to come to the Lord of Israel as one in the body of Messiah, both Jew and Gentile.
Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad.
hamashiachagape
One is compelled to know how this following came about. The Bar Kochba revolt which was the 2nd Jewish Revolt that ended in 135 A.D. began a principle rift that occurred between the Church and the Synagogue, but principally, this was due to the unwillingness of non-Jewish believers to suffer the wrath of imperial Rome. Jewish believers were willing to participate in the Bar Kochba Revolt, until Rabbi Akiva declared him to be the Messiah, at which point the Messianic Jews were no longer willing to fight alongside him. Of course this was lost to the Roman empire. The rise of what would be considered Orthodox Judaism by affected this. By 70 A.D., and even according to the Mishnah, it is recorded that after the death of Yeshua around 30 A.D. up until 70 A.D. that sacrifices by God were no longer being accepted. To keep some of its converts there was known as a benedition against the heretics, the Amidah, that was prayed in a few synagogues during the time period of Justin Martyr. This, unbeknownst to Roman churches were words that amounted to a curse against Messianic Jewish believers (the ones described in Acts), NOT directly aimed at the Roman church. This was taken out of context, as can be seen in the misunderstandings of Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. He states "To the utmost of your power you dishonor and curse in your synagogues all those who believe in Christ....In your synagogues you curse too those who through them have become Christians and the Gentiles put into effect your curse by killing all those who merely admit that they are Christians." Already anti-semitic in nature, Roman ideas fueled other writings such as the epistle of Barnabas which states "Take heed to yourselves and be not like some, piling up your sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it...(Epistle 4:6-7). These words have fueled what is known in today's terminology as Replacement Theology. Origen took this work farther by stating that legalism applied to the Jews, and set Jews as the enemy. Funny enough, Origen was excommunicated by the church. He would later have different disciples which included Gregory, Dionysus, Hieracas, Pamphilus, and Eusebius of the Nicene age. This replacement theology did not become prevalent in the church until Constantinople in 325 A.D., as can be seen in Constantine taking the covenant away from Israel and putting it on his own church in Constantinople.
Let us take a close look at Constantine. It will be interesting to most that Constantine was never even considered a Christian. He was never baptized until he was close to his deathbed. He took his son Cripus and had him put to death. In addition his wife Faustus was also ordered to death by Constantine. Constantine set up a "Theocratic" system of government in which Caesars were to take over the throne and establish the church in Constantinople, making it the centerfold. Through purely political purposes and through his paganistic ideology, this, in addition to the death of his family was established. It is noted that he actually built the Arch of Constantine and the arch was decorated in sacrifices to gods such as Apollo, Diana and Hercules, and contains no Christian symbolism whatsoever. Does anyone know where the worship on Sunday came about? Esoteric sun worship was to be acknowledged and this was what helped in uniting the Christians and non Christians to "venerate the day of the sun." This is lost to many Christians. Constantine was not a Christian, but rather a pagan.
Later this anti-semitism would expand to various other locations. The Catholic church demonstrated several examples of this. The Crusaders (11th and 12th century) theology supported the mass murder of Jews. This has spun off into what our generation has come to know in Bosnia as the "ethnic cleansing operations".
The Spanish Inquisition still holds Spain in bondage to many curses due to the shedding of innocent blood. Both campaigns were done "in the name of Yeshua and for the glory of God."
Antisemitism did not go away with the church of the Reformation period. Martin Luther, though having some good ideas within his 95 Theses such that everyone could own a copy of the Bible, made statements in such a manner that would hurt Jews. "Set Jewish synagogues on fire for the honor of God. God will see we are Christians when we get rid of the Jews. Likewise homes should be destroyed; they should be put in a stable; they are not heirs of promises of God and deserve to die. Deprive them of all prayer shawls, prayer books and communication, revoke all passports, stop them from doing all business, everything they possess we believe they stole and robbed from us. They do not have God's blessings, drive them out of the country ... get rid of them."
Many fail to realize that this statement would influence the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler is not usually a good name to pull up in a debate. However, if you'll focus in on what Hitler states you'll see this is definitively true. "I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on." Hitler later followed Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews. Martin Luther preached his last sermon against the Jews. Nazi leader Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say". Thus the beat goes on, and we still have a problem within our church today.
This problem I will hope to alleviate within my writings. We should all seek to come to the Lord of Israel as one in the body of Messiah, both Jew and Gentile.
Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad.
hamashiachagape
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)