OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 03:27:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Messianic Judaism  (Read 34148 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« on: September 01, 2009, 07:28:32 AM »

As I noticed we have a new member on the forum , wich is an Messianic Jew , i taught i would open this thread.Is the Messianic Judaism a cult?How is their worship , when did it appear?What doctrines do they have and what dogmas?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 07:29:46 AM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2009, 07:50:02 AM »

Ah yes, nothing says "Welcome to the Forum" as "So, do you belong to a cult?"  Roll Eyes
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2009, 08:26:10 AM »

Shalom all,

Thanks for the welcome and no don't worry I'm not insulted LOL.

Messianic Judaism is in fact a modern revival of an ancient sect that the Church Fathers and Talmudic Rabbis call "the Nazarenes". So Nazarenes is our proper designation, while "Messianic Judaism" is the description - that being we are Jews who believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah of Israel, the Son of God, ect. basically what the Disciples and most of the Apostles were. To use "Orthodox Christian" speak, we are "Hebraic Christians", or the "Hebraic Rite".

For our worship and theology, what makes us stick out like a sore thumb, so to speak, is that we are Torah observant. We eat kosher food, keep Shabbat (the Sabbath), and the Feasts of YHWH. The Feasts of YHWH in particular are very important to us because we consider them to be "icons" of YHWH's beloved Son, our Saviour and King Yeshua the Messiah. Each feast is a prophecy of key events in Messiah's work here on earth, He has fulfilled 4 of them, and when He returns He will fulfill the remaining 3.

We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though we define the "Godhead" a little differently. Our theology is based exclusively on Hebrew and Aramaic terminology, because these were the languages of the Prophets and Apostles. They spoke to God in these 2 languages, and likewise He spoke to them in the same 2 languages. Afterall you pray to God in your native language, so if He had to ever speak to you, audibly, wouldn't He do so in your native language?

I'm looking forward to answering your questions, and I sincerely enjoy talking about my faith. But be aware that my answers with usually contain a lot of Hebrew & Aramaic terminology, which I'll explain to the best of my ability. Imagine that most of my posts will be quite lengthly, so please try to ask one question at a time.

So what do you want to know?

Shalom in our Master, Saviour & King, Yeshua.

Nazarene.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2009, 08:29:31 AM »

We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though we define the "Godhead" a little differently. Our theology is based exclusively on Hebrew and Aramaic terminology, because these were the languages of the Prophets and Apostles. They spoke to God in these 2 languages, and likewise He spoke to them in the same 2 languages. Afterall you pray to God in your native language, so if He had to ever speak to you, audibly, wouldn't He do so in your native language?
That's not true, actually. Hebrew was a dead language by that point, and Christ and the apostles spoke in Aramaic and Greek. That's why all of the apostles' writings were in Greek. They spoke that language, as did all of the eastern Roman Empire.

As to the OP, Messianic Judaism is a part of Protestant Christianity. Most of its members are either ethnic Jews who convert to a Protestant faith or Protestants who want to embrace a more ancient faith.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2009, 08:53:39 AM »

That's not true, actually. Hebrew was a dead language by that point, and Christ and the apostles spoke in Aramaic and Greek.

In 1st century Israel, yes you are correct. But Hebrew was spoken by the Prophets (Moses, David, Isaiah, ect.). This is why I said the languages of the Prophets and Aposles - the Prophets spoke Hebrew (and some of the later ones like Daniel & Ezra, Aramaic), while Yeshua and the Apostles spoke Aramaic and Greek. However for most Aramaic was their native language which is why we give preference to Aramaic over Greek.

That's why all of the apostles' writings were in Greek. They spoke that language, as did all of the eastern Roman Empire.

We don't have an official stance on the original language of the NT books, though most of us are exploring the possibilty that they were originally written in Aramaic. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread, but nevertheless the Apostles being native Aramaic speakers would've still needed to translate what they thinking into Greek, albeit in written form. This is how we understand things. We have great respect for the Greek NT and still consider it authoritive, the word of God is the word of God no matter what language. But we feel that Aramaic shouldn't be ignored when studying the Apostolic writings.

As to the OP, Messianic Judaism is a part of Protestant Christianity. Most of its members are either ethnic Jews who convert to a Protestant faith or Protestants who want to embrace a more ancient faith.

Jews for Jesus are not Nazarenes, they are Jewish converts to Protestant Christianity who evangelize Rabbinical Jews. We are not part of Protestantism, though some of us to come from Protestant or Roman Catholic backgrounds. We worship on Shabbat and observe the Torah, and that's really as anti-Protestant as you can get.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2009, 09:29:10 AM »

Jews for Jesus are not Nazarenes, they are Jewish converts to Protestant Christianity who evangelize Rabbinical Jews. We are not part of Protestantism, though some of us to come from Protestant or Roman Catholic backgrounds. We worship on Shabbat and observe the Torah, and that's really as anti-Protestant as you can get.
Oh, I don't know.  There are a number of Protestant denominations that worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), and some even strive to follow some of the dietary laws of the Torah.  Seventh Day Adventists come particularly to mind here.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2009, 09:31:16 AM »

That's not true, actually. Hebrew was a dead language by that point, and Christ and the apostles spoke in Aramaic and Greek.

In 1st century Israel, yes you are correct. But Hebrew was spoken by the Prophets (Moses, David, Isaiah, ect.). This is why I said the languages of the Prophets and Aposles - the Prophets spoke Hebrew (and some of the later ones like Daniel & Ezra, Aramaic), while Yeshua and the Apostles spoke Aramaic and Greek. However for most Aramaic was their native language which is why we give preference to Aramaic over Greek.

That's why all of the apostles' writings were in Greek. They spoke that language, as did all of the eastern Roman Empire.

We don't have an official stance on the original language of the NT books, though most of us are exploring the possibilty that they were originally written in Aramaic. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread, but nevertheless the Apostles being native Aramaic speakers would've still needed to translate what they thinking into Greek, albeit in written form. This is how we understand things. We have great respect for the Greek NT and still consider it authoritive, the word of God is the word of God no matter what language. But we feel that Aramaic shouldn't be ignored when studying the Apostolic writings.

As to the OP, Messianic Judaism is a part of Protestant Christianity. Most of its members are either ethnic Jews who convert to a Protestant faith or Protestants who want to embrace a more ancient faith.

Jews for Jesus are not Nazarenes, they are Jewish converts to Protestant Christianity who evangelize Rabbinical Jews. We are not part of Protestantism, though some of us to come from Protestant or Roman Catholic backgrounds. We worship on Shabbat and observe the Torah, and that's really as anti-Protestant as you can get.


LOL.  You haven't heard of Seventh Day Adventists?


From the Orthodox prespective, what your history and dogma says whether your are Protestant or not.  The Vatican has a Jewish ministry.  Among us, the Ethiopia Orthodox have retained their Hebrew roots, and of course we have the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

That you say that God spoke in Hebrew and Aramaic would seem to put you with the Protestant camp: we acknowledge that the Seventy were inspired in translating the Septuagint, and the Books of the Maccabbees, written in Greek, are inspired and part of the canon.  Do you accept the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals, or do you consider them Apocrypha and go with the Rabbinic canon?

The Patriarch of Jerusalem sits on David's throne in Jerusalem, as St. Epiphanios tells us in the Panarion, the cathedra of Jerusalem.  Do you have/claim Apostolic succession?  Lack of that almost makes you Protestant by default.

Do you believe that you partake of the True Paschal sacrifice on the altar?

Btw, on the Orthodox Calendar, today is the Beginning of Creation, and St. Joshua the Son of Nun a/k/a Jesus Navi day, my son's name's day.  The reading yesterday (Heb. 9:1-7) was preparing us for Yoom Kippur, September 14.

Jews for Jesus are not Nazarenes, they are Jewish converts to Protestant Christianity who evangelize Rabbinical Jews. We are not part of Protestantism, though some of us to come from Protestant or Roman Catholic backgrounds. We worship on Shabbat and observe the Torah, and that's really as anti-Protestant as you can get.
Oh, I don't know.  There are a number of Protestant denominations that worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), and some even strive to follow some of the dietary laws of the Torah.  Seventh Day Adventists come particularly to mind here.

As we can see, I was thinking the same thing. Scary. Tongue
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 09:32:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 10:02:23 AM »

Quote
Each feast is a prophecy of key events in Messiah's work here on earth, He has fulfilled 4 of them, and when He returns He will fulfill the remaining 3.

Interesting wich are this 4 and the remaining 3?I don`t mind big posts btw.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2009, 11:54:42 AM »

Quote
Each feast is a prophecy of key events in Messiah's work here on earth, He has fulfilled 4 of them, and when He returns He will fulfill the remaining 3.

Interesting wich are this 4 and the remaining 3?I don`t mind big posts btw.

Sure, in a nutshell:

Quote
The way in which Jesus fulfilled the Jewish feasts is a fascinating study. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish prophet Amos records that God declared He would do nothing without first revealing it to His servants, the Prophets (Amos 3:7). From the Old Covenant to the New, Genesis to Revelation, God provides picture after picture of His entire plan for mankind and one of the most startling prophetic pictures is outlined for us in the Jewish Feasts of Leviticus 23.

The Hebrew word for feasts (moadim) literally means "appointed times." God has carefully planned and orchestrated the timing and sequence of each of these seven feasts to reveal to us a special story. The seven annual feasts of Israel were spread over seven months of the Jewish calendar, at set times appointed by God. They are still celebrated by observant Jews today. But for both Jews and non-Jews who have placed their faith in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, these special days demonstrate the work of redemption through God’s Son.

The first four of the seven feasts occur during the springtime (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Weeks) and they all have already been fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament. The final three holidays (Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles) occur during the fall, all within a short fifteen-day period.

Many Bible scholars and commentators believe that these fall feasts have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus. However, the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) for all believers in Jesus Christ is that they most assuredly will. As the four spring feasts were fulfilled literally and right on the actual feast day in connection with Christ's first coming, these three fall feasts, it is believed by many, will likewise be fulfilled literally in connection to the Lord's second coming.

In a nutshell, here is the prophetic significance of each of the seven Levitical feasts of Israel:

1) Passover (Leviticus 23:5) – Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover at the same hour that the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal that evening.

2) Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:6) – Pointed to the Messiah's sinless life (as leaven is a picture of sin in the Bible), making Him the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus' body was in the grave during the first days of this feast, like a kernel of wheat planted and waiting to burst forth as the bread of life.

3) First Fruits (Leviticus 23:10) – Pointed to the Messiah's resurrection as the first fruits of the righteous. Jesus was resurrected on this very day, which is one of the reasons that Paul refers to him in I Corinthians 15:20 as the "first fruits from the dead."

4) Weeks or Pentecost (Leviticus 23:16) – Occurred fifty days after the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and pointed to the great harvest of souls and the gift of the Holy Spirit for both Jew and Gentile, who would be brought into the kingdom of God during the Church Age (see Acts 2). The Church was actually established on this day when God poured out His Holy Spirit and 3,000 Jews responded to Peter's great sermon and his first proclamation of the Gospel.

5) Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24) – The first of the fall feasts. Many believe this day points to the Rapture of the Church when the Messiah Jesus will appear in the heavens as He comes for His bride, the Church. The Rapture is always associated in Scripture with the blowing of a loud trumpet (I Thessalonians 4:13-18 and I Corinthians 15:52).

6) Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27) – Many believe this prophetically points to the day of the Second Coming of Jesus when He will return to earth. That will be the Day of Atonement for the Jewish remnant when they "look upon Him whom they have pierced," repent of their sins, and receive Him as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:1-6, 25-36).

7) Tabernacles or Booths (Leviticus 23:34) – Many scholars believe that this feast day points to the Lord's promise that He will once again “tabernacle” with His people when He returns to reign over all the world (Micah 4:1-7).

Should Christians celebrate these Levitical feast days of Israel today? Whether or not a Christian celebrates the Jewish feast days would be a matter of conscience for the individual Christian. Colossians 2:16-17 tells us “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Christians are not bound to observe the Jewish feasts the way an Old Testament Jew was, but we should not criticize another believer who does or does not observe these special days and feasts (Romans 14:5).

While it is not required for Christians to celebrate the Jewish feast days, it is beneficial to study them. Certainly it could be beneficial to celebrate these days if it leads one to a greater understanding and appreciation for Christ’s death and resurrection and the future promise of His coming. As Christians, if we choose to celebrate these special days, we should put Christ in the center of the celebration, as the One who came to fulfill the prophetic significance of each of them.

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jewish-feasts.html

The only one of these feasts that is not observed by modern Rabbinical Judaism is Yom HaBikkurim (the Feast of Firstfriuts), which isn't surprising as it symbolizes Yeshua's resurrection from the dead.

I can get into specifics of the liturgical rituals when we celebrate these feasts if you're interested. Eg: here's an example of a Pesakh/Paskha celebration, the one my congregation uses: http://www.tushiyah.org/hRH.pdf.


Logged
Catherine
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 453


« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2009, 12:32:55 PM »

It's nice to meet you, Nazarene. I find it sad that many Christians undervalue or misunderstand the Jewish roots of their Faith (one of the reasons I chose Orthodoxy, in fact - I read up on the historical/Jewish roots of the Early Church and Eucharistic Theology). I look forward to reading your posts.

Shalom b'Mashiach Yeshua
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2009, 01:02:55 PM »

Does your Messianic 'church/synagogue' worship with guitars and PowerPoint?  I'm actually serious, and not trying to be patronizing at all.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2009, 02:00:51 PM »

It's nice to meet you, Nazarene. I find it sad that many Christians undervalue or misunderstand the Jewish roots of their Faith (one of the reasons I chose Orthodoxy, in fact - I read up on the historical/Jewish roots of the Early Church and Eucharistic Theology). I look forward to reading your posts.

Shalom b'Mashiach Yeshua

Shalom aleikhem dear sister in Mashiach Yeshua.

I know that the Orthodox Church and other Apostolic communites (Ethiopians, ect.) have retain their Hebrew roots to varying degrees. This why I joined this forum, to study this indepth. And I too look forward to further discussion.

Does your Messianic 'church/synagogue' worship with guitars and PowerPoint?  I'm actually serious, and not trying to be patronizing at all.



The one I attend thank heavens doesn't! Some do though. My synagogue is very traditional, we chant the Scriptures in Hebrew & Aramaic (no background music), we kneel for prayers with our foreheads touching the ground, and women wear veils.  While most Messianic Jews are converts from Judaism many are converts from Protestantism. Usually when one takes on a different way of belief there's some baggage that comes along. This baggage takes time to shed and it's not easy. Some Messianics have "Greco-Roman Christian phobia", while others are still very attached to Talmudic and Kabbalistic customs. Here's how a friend of mine put it:

Quote
The whole Netzarim movement is about reconstructionism. We believe that the original way was lost very early on in the first centuries. I personally hold that there will be no full restoration without prophets like Eliyahu coming or even without the Mshikha himself. We look through a glass dimly. But I believe the Messiah will restore everything one day. But until then, we have a whole bunch of people trying to put all the pieces back together again. When that Job is the Messiah's. Sometimes it looks like chickens running around with their heads chopped off.

There is something very exciting about seeking out an ancient path which has been lost. But it is a small step before one reaches heresy. Caution is need. It's also important to remember that not everything was lost. We still have the Bible after all. So in my humble opinion, one should read the Bible regulary and study Orthodox Christianity and Judaism. See what they agree on first. And do that. Where they disagree, look up what the Bible has to say about it in the original languages. That is a good starting point, but to just run off and do it alone, to make something from scratch is a very dangerous thing to do.

Try and focus on the majors, not the minors. What beliefs, tenants, practices are the things that really matter in scripture. Scripture warns about entertaining pointless arguments. So try and focus on the fruitful ones.

Worship God regularly. With your mouth and how you live your life.

And in spite of the fact we've lost some things. Thank God for everything we DO have. All the blessings he's given us. We have so much to be truly grateful for.

Basically what we wish to restore is what the Fathers described on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect).

I agree with my friend that we will not restore everying we once had on our own, only Yeshua will restore all things when He returns. So my reason for joining this forum is to seek out what the Orthodox Church has restored.

I am a Jew who simply loves my Messiah and Saviour and wish to live the way He and His disciples lived. My sect is not without problems and even heresy, and I'm not afraid to talk about these problems and ask my Orthodox brothers and sisters for advice and prayer.

Thank you all again for the welcome.

Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2009, 03:36:02 PM »

There is a tremendous amount of connection between traditional Jewish worship and Eastern Orthodox worship. My priest Fr James Bernstein identifies himself as Jewish and Christian. He teaches our catechism class and went over the connections in the classes. There are a couple great books on the subject that he suggested. The book; "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix, is the one he suggested the most. I can find my notes or ask him what other books he suggests if you like. Just a note; Dix is actually an Anglican scholar not an Orthodox scholar. So this isn't a book on Orthodoxy persay, it is a book on the formation of the liturgical service.



As well you could read his book; "Surprised by Christ."  He writes about some of the connections in his book (a great deal of our catechism classes were based on his notes for the book) There are so many correlations that I couldn't list them all.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 03:46:35 PM by Quinault » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2009, 04:54:50 PM »

We don't have an official stance on the original language of the NT books, though most of us are exploring the possibilty that they were originally written in Aramaic. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread, but nevertheless the Apostles being native Aramaic speakers would've still needed to translate what they thinking into Greek, albeit in written form. This is how we understand things. We have great respect for the Greek NT and still consider it authoritive, the word of God is the word of God no matter what language. But we feel that Aramaic shouldn't be ignored when studying the Apostolic writings.
My native language is English, but I also speak (and teach) Spanish. I can tell you that although my students often do translate their thoughts from English to Spanish, there is a point at which one no longer needs to do so, but can simply think in Spanish. Sometimes I will talk to a student in Spanish and then need to translate what I just said into English.

As for the New Testament, it was originally written in Greek, with certain phrases in Aramaic (those phrases are typically left in Aramaic in modern English translations). This is an historical fact, not a belief.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2009, 10:20:48 PM »

Can you move my above post to the one on Messianic Judaism? I tried to "report" my post to have it moved but apparently; "You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!" laugh
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 10:22:28 PM by Quinault » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2009, 12:05:15 AM »

Basically what we wish to restore is what the Fathers described on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect).

But surely you must realize that it is impossible to to reconstruct something almost 2000 years later!  This is a failed project from the beginning.  Attempts to 'restore' a pure faith have resulted in religious movements like Islam and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I agree with my friend that we will not restore everything we once had on our own, only Yeshua will restore all things when He returns. So my reason for joining this forum is to seek out what the Orthodox Church has restored.

Surely you must realize how this statement is offensive to Orthodox Christians?  Perhaps rather than 'restored', you meant to write 'retained'?  If not, the Orthodox Church is not a reconstruction project.  Constantine did not hope to dig into the past and reconstruct his imperial church in the image of some long-lost idealized church.  He worked with the churches that the holy apostles founded in the major city-centers.  The bishops of these churches gathered and hammered out their theology, still firmly rooted in the apostolic teaching that came from the Jews that evangelized their cities.

I am a Jew who simply loves my Messiah and Saviour and wish to live the way He and His disciples lived. My sect is not without problems and even heresy, and I'm not afraid to talk about these problems and ask my Orthodox brothers and sisters for advice and prayer.

If you wish to live the way they lived, then you must receive His true Body and Blood as the source of your life.  My advice to you, since you were baptized Orthodox, would be to strongly consider confessing to a local Orthodox priest, and to again begin to receive the sacred Mysteries.  Of course, an honest personal assessment would require you reexamine what the Church is, and if the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against her.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2009, 12:12:35 AM »

Can you move my above post to the one on Messianic Judaism? I tried to "report" my post to have it moved but apparently; "You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!" laugh
DONE! Grin
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2009, 01:13:27 AM »

Nazarene, have you studied Syrian Christianity at all?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2009, 01:14:35 AM »


We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though we define the "Godhead" a little differently.

It would be nice if you could explain a little bit how you understand the Godhead and how you understand Christ.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2009, 11:43:34 AM »

There is a tremendous amount of connection between traditional Jewish worship and Eastern Orthodox worship. My priest Fr James Bernstein identifies himself as Jewish and Christian. He teaches our catechism class and went over the connections in the classes. There are a couple great books on the subject that he suggested. The book; "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix, is the one he suggested the most. I can find my notes or ask him what other books he suggests if you like. Just a note; Dix is actually an Anglican scholar not an Orthodox scholar. So this isn't a book on Orthodoxy persay, it is a book on the formation of the liturgical service.

As well you could read his book; "Surprised by Christ."  He writes about some of the connections in his book (a great deal of our catechism classes were based on his notes for the book) There are so many correlations that I couldn't list them all.

Thank you very much for the suggestions and if you have anything in electronic format don't hesistate to PM me.

My native language is English, but I also speak (and teach) Spanish. I can tell you that although my students often do translate their thoughts from English to Spanish, there is a point at which one no longer needs to do so, but can simply think in Spanish. Sometimes I will talk to a student in Spanish and then need to translate what I just said into English.

I understand what you're saying but things can get very complicated when you are dealing with two completely unrelated languages. English and Spanish are both Indo-European languages, Greek is Indo-European while Aramaic (and Hebrew) is Semitic. And languages are more than words; idioms and concepts are involved too. In some cases a common concept is understood differently in Semitic thought than in Greco-Roman thought. There are also cases where the two languages don't share a concept at all. Though I'd rather not delve into specifics at this point as I fear it will take this thread into places I don't want it to go.

As for the New Testament, it was originally written in Greek, with certain phrases in Aramaic (those phrases are typically left in Aramaic in modern English translations). This is an historical fact, not a belief.

I once met a Greek Orthodox lady who told me that the NT was originally penned in 3 languages - Greek, Aramaic and Latin by 70 people (the 70 Apostles?). I she didn't name her source, but she spoke in broken English so maybe I misunderstood her, or she got confused with the 72 Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek?

Nevertheless for us modern Nazarenes, nothing is set in stone yet. Some Nazarene scholars who are dedicated to textual criticism have been doing research on the history of Christianity outside the Roman empire, and their studies have shown that there's a lot that the west doesn't know. Plus there are statements in the Fathers (Papias, Jerome) which state that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and that Hebrews was also written in Hebrew. But there is debate whether "Hebrew" refers to the Hebrew language or (more likely) the "Hebrew" dialect of Aramaic (of Jerusalem), which was written in the "Hebrew" script. In the meantime we have chosen to use the Peshitta because it's in Aramaic and is therefore more compatible with the Hebrew Tanakh than the Greek NT. In addition to the reason I stated in my previous post. In short, we are not argueing against the mainstream position (Greek primacy), we are merely questioning it.

But surely you must realize that it is impossible to to reconstruct something almost 2000 years later!  This is a failed project from the beginning.  Attempts to 'restore' a pure faith have resulted in religious movements like Islam and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

This is true however the faith itself is not what we are seeking to restore. We don't need to as it was never lost in the first place, God forbid! We are merely seeking to restore our ancient practices of the faith - specially our ancient liturgical traditions. We know that Yeshua and His Apostles (the Jewish ones that is) were Torah observant, and this we have restored though for most of us who were observant Jews before "the veil was lifted from our eyes", this wasn't a difficult, as it merely meant discarding some the Talmudic stuff. But what we still need to find out are the specifics of our worship services, what rituals were done, what prayers and blessings were said, etc., though the NT itself does provide some of these (headcoverings, kiss of peace). And so some of us are exploring Orthodox Christian worship in order to see if we can find some of these.

I agree with my friend that we will not restore everything we once had on our own, only Yeshua will restore all things when He returns. So my reason for joining this forum is to seek out what the Orthodox Church has restored.

Surely you must realize how this statement is offensive to Orthodox Christians?  Perhaps rather than 'restored', you meant to write 'retained'?[/quote]

My apologies! "Restored" was indeed a typo, I honestly thought I wrote "preserved" which was my implication. Thank you notifying me this.

I am a Jew who simply loves my Messiah and Saviour and wish to live the way He and His disciples lived. My sect is not without problems and even heresy, and I'm not afraid to talk about these problems and ask my Orthodox brothers and sisters for advice and prayer.

If you wish to live the way they lived, then you must receive His true Body and Blood as the source of your life.  My advice to you, since you were baptized Orthodox, would be to strongly consider confessing to a local Orthodox priest, and to again begin to receive the sacred Mysteries.  Of course, an honest personal assessment would require you reexamine what the Church is, and if the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against her.[/quote]

The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, or else Messiah is liar, God forbid! The Church has lost some battles in the past but she will not lose the war.

Nazarene, have you studied Syrian Christianity at all?

I have studied a bit about the Assyrian Church of the East, and have some friends who are members but not the other Syrian churches like the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Christians of India. Please do feel free to recommend reading materials or users on this forum who are members of these churches for answering questions.

We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though we define the "Godhead" a little differently.
It would be nice if you could explain a little bit how you understand the Godhead and how you understand Christ.

Sure I would be happy to, but I will do so in my next post as this one has become a bit long. BTW what is this forum's stance on "double posting"? Some forums forbid 2 or more posts in a row by the same user, so I just want to make sure that I don't break any rules first.


Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2009, 01:24:07 PM »


My native language is English, but I also speak (and teach) Spanish. I can tell you that although my students often do translate their thoughts from English to Spanish, there is a point at which one no longer needs to do so, but can simply think in Spanish. Sometimes I will talk to a student in Spanish and then need to translate what I just said into English.


Just out of interest, I have read that this is not true of everyone. It seems that the time at which, and perhaps also the way in which, you learnt your second language has an effect on the way you switch between first and second languages. Certainly, my bilingual partner can't switch between English and Russian as quickly and seamlessly as you describe, and he's a true bilingual whose language skills are those of a first-language graduate.

How much writing in a second language would have bothered the Gospel writers is an interesting question, though.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2009, 02:28:32 PM »

There is a tremendous amount of connection between traditional Jewish worship and Eastern Orthodox worship. My priest Fr James Bernstein identifies himself as Jewish and Christian. He teaches our catechism class and went over the connections in the classes. There are a couple great books on the subject that he suggested. The book; "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix, is the one he suggested the most. I can find my notes or ask him what other books he suggests if you like. Just a note; Dix is actually an Anglican scholar not an Orthodox scholar. So this isn't a book on Orthodoxy persay, it is a book on the formation of the liturgical service.

As well you could read his book; "Surprised by Christ."  He writes about some of the connections in his book (a great deal of our catechism classes were based on his notes for the book) There are so many correlations that I couldn't list them all.

Thank you very much for the suggestions and if you have anything in electronic format don't hesistate to PM me.

http://www.surprisedbychrist.com/
Quote
"Fr James Bernstein's roots are here in Jerusalem even as he ministers in the Pacific Northwest. Though separated by vast distance we are one and united in our desire to actualize an authentic Jewish Christian Orthodox Church in the Holy Land as in the beginning. His book compellingly presents why of all branches of Christianity, Orthodox Christianity has by far the greatest kinship to Judaism."
-- Fr. Alexander Winogradsky, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate – Jerusalem (Head of the Hebrew-speaking community)
http://the-illumined-heart.com/content/view/35/33/
Quote
Fr. James Bernstein: From co-founder of “Jews for Jesus” to Orthodox Priest - The Illumined Heart        
This week on the Illumined Heart Orthodox Christian Podcast:
This interview recounts the fascinating story of the dramatic conversion to Christ (from Orthodox Judaism) and the spiritual journey of a co-founder of the messianic Christian group, "Jews for Jesus" as he finds his way "home" to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html
http://www.geocities.com/jej89/orthodoxlinks.html

From a Protestant viewpoint, but in many ways Orthodox:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2002maier.pdf
Quote
"Old Testament Paradigms for New Testament Worship”
CTS Exegetical Symposium
January 23, 2002
Walter Maier III

Orthodox worship: a living continuity with the temple, the synagogue and the Early Church By Benjamin D. Williams, Benjamin Anastall is good but not on line
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Worship-Living-Continuity-Synagogue/dp/0937032727
http://www.conciliarpress.com/the-nation-of-israel-in-prophecy.html
Quote
The Nation of Israel in Prophecy
The Orthodox position on the Old and New Convenants, the Church as the new Israel, and the teaching of Christ regarding this important issue.
http://www.conciliarpress.com/orthodoxy-jewish-and-christian.html
Quote
Orthodoxy: Jewish and Christian
Meet Father James Bernstein: the son of a Jewish rabbi living in Jerusalem who became a "Jews for Jesus" evangelical Christian and is now an Eastern Orthodox priest.

My native language is English, but I also speak (and teach) Spanish. I can tell you that although my students often do translate their thoughts from English to Spanish, there is a point at which one no longer needs to do so, but can simply think in Spanish. Sometimes I will talk to a student in Spanish and then need to translate what I just said into English.

I understand what you're saying but things can get very complicated when you are dealing with two completely unrelated languages. English and Spanish are both Indo-European languages, Greek is Indo-European while Aramaic (and Hebrew) is Semitic. And languages are more than words; idioms and concepts are involved too. In some cases a common concept is understood differently in Semitic thought than in Greco-Roman thought. There are also cases where the two languages don't share a concept at all. Though I'd rather not delve into specifics at this point as I fear it will take this thread into places I don't want it to go.

That's like saying the Semites can't understand modern engineering, because all the modern advances have been done in Indo-European or Finno-Uralic.

Much of the corpus of Classical Greek Philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) survives only in Arabic translation.

Yes, its a problem, but no, its not insurmountable. The Early Church, at least unto Chalcedon, managed in Indo-European, Semitic, Caucasan, Nilo-Saharan and Dravidian.  I submit than any problematic nuances still left fall under I Timothy 6:4

As for the New Testament, it was originally written in Greek, with certain phrases in Aramaic (those phrases are typically left in Aramaic in modern English translations). This is an historical fact, not a belief.

I once met a Greek Orthodox lady who told me that the NT was originally penned in 3 languages - Greek, Aramaic and Latin by 70 people (the 70 Apostles?). I she didn't name her source, but she spoke in broken English so maybe I misunderstood her, or she got confused with the 72 Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek?

Nevertheless for us modern Nazarenes, nothing is set in stone yet. Some Nazarene scholars who are dedicated to textual criticism have been doing research on the history of Christianity outside the Roman empire, and their studies have shown that there's a lot that the west doesn't know. Plus there are statements in the Fathers (Papias, Jerome) which state that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and that Hebrews was also written in Hebrew. But there is debate whether "Hebrew" refers to the Hebrew language or (more likely) the "Hebrew" dialect of Aramaic (of Jerusalem), which was written in the "Hebrew" script. In the meantime we have chosen to use the Peshitta because it's in Aramaic and is therefore more compatible with the Hebrew Tanakh than the Greek NT. In addition to the reason I stated in my previous post. In short, we are not argueing against the mainstream position (Greek primacy), we are merely questioning it.

Because the Peshitta is in Aramaic doesn't mean it is more in line with the Hebrew (read Masoretic, which is late) Tanakh.  For one, it includes the Anagignoskomena, and its text on Isaiah and Psalms favors the LXX over the Masoretic.

Btw, my working theory on Matthew is that his Hebrew text was a collection of logia like what is postulated for Q, and that the narrative version was made when he translated it (as Tradition tells us) into Greek. There is nothing to suggest that the rest of the NT was in Aramaic: the Epistles and Revelation are written to Churches in the Greek speaking world, a Greek (St. Luke) wrote his Gospel and Acts, Mark was written in Rome and translated Aramaic phrases (the only "exact words" of Christ we have.  Cf. "Amen," "Alleuja," "Sabaoth," etc. even to this day).

But surely you must realize that it is impossible to to reconstruct something almost 2000 years later!  This is a failed project from the beginning.  Attempts to 'restore' a pure faith have resulted in religious movements like Islam and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

This is true however the faith itself is not what we are seeking to restore. We don't need to as it was never lost in the first place, God forbid! We are merely seeking to restore our ancient practices of the faith - specially our ancient liturgical traditions. We know that Yeshua and His Apostles (the Jewish ones that is) were Torah observant, and this we have restored though for most of us who were observant Jews before "the veil was lifted from our eyes", this wasn't a difficult, as it merely meant discarding some the Talmudic stuff. But what we still need to find out are the specifics of our worship services, what rituals were done, what prayers and blessings were said, etc., though the NT itself does provide some of these (headcoverings, kiss of peace). And so some of us are exploring Orthodox Christian worship in order to see if we can find some of these.

Christ and the Apostles were indeed Torah observant, but they were not Talmud observant.  What specific rituals were done? The Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of God and Patriarch of Jerusalem.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm

I am a Jew who simply loves my Messiah and Saviour and wish to live the way He and His disciples lived. My sect is not without problems and even heresy, and I'm not afraid to talk about these problems and ask my Orthodox brothers and sisters for advice and prayer.

If you wish to live the way they lived, then you must receive His true Body and Blood as the source of your life.  My advice to you, since you were baptized Orthodox, would be to strongly consider confessing to a local Orthodox priest, and to again begin to receive the sacred Mysteries.  Of course, an honest personal assessment would require you reexamine what the Church is, and if the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against her.

The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, or else Messiah is liar, God forbid! The Church has lost some battles in the past but she will not lose the war.

So, you admit that Orthodox Church has through all generations prevailed against Hell, and that your church's is looking for a Hebrew equivalent of the Western Rite Orthodox?

Nazarene, have you studied Syrian Christianity at all?

I have studied a bit about the Assyrian Church of the East, and have some friends who are members but not the other Syrian churches like the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Christians of India. Please do feel free to recommend reading materials or users on this forum who are members of these churches for answering questions.
http://sor.cua.edu/
http://www.socdigest.org/
http://www.jacobiteonline.com/
http://www.jacobitesyrianchurch.org/
http://www.epilgrim.org/syrian_liturgy.htm
http://www.malankarasyriacvoice.com/

We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though we define the "Godhead" a little differently.
It would be nice if you could explain a little bit how you understand the Godhead and how you understand Christ.

Sure I would be happy to, but I will do so in my next post as this one has become a bit long. BTW what is this forum's stance on "double posting"? Some forums forbid 2 or more posts in a row by the same user, so I just want to make sure that I don't break any rules first.

Looking forward to the post.  And you can always post links between posts (except to the private forums in the moderated).
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 02:32:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2009, 03:33:11 PM »

How much writing in a second language would have bothered the Gospel writers is an interesting question, though.

For the Gospels in particular Aramaic needs to be brought into the disscussion for the following reasons:

1. Aramaic was the native language of Messiah. The majority of Yeshua's sermons and parables were preached to fellow Aramaic speaking Jews, usually of the lower, uneducated classes who likely were not fluent in Greek. Yeshua had more opportunities to speak His native language than Greek. Even if the Gospel authors first recorded these sayings of Yeshua in Greek, they are still translating what He said.

2. All the Gospels authors were native Aramaic speaking Jews from Palestine, save St. Luke. But where Luke is concerned all the Fathers actually have to say about him, is that he was from Syrian Antioch and that he knew Greek, but that's it. However that does not automatically mean that he was a native Greek speaker, as Antioch was a bilingual city which consisted of both native Aramaic and native Greek speakers. Furthermore being from Syrian Antioch and knowing Greek doesn't automatically make Luke a gentile either, he could very well have been a Jew too.
We must be careful not claim that something is fact when we don't have evidence to support it.

Now concerning if writing in a second language would've bothered the blessed Apostles:

The implications of this are enormous considering that they are essentially translating what was spoken by God in the flesh! And what's more, Yeshua's Disciples at times had great difficulty understanding some of His parables, and in their native language to boot!

Please, don't interpret this to mean that I'm doubting the power of the Holy Spirit, surely not. But I want you to try and contemplate the magnitude of the task God Almighty designated to these 4 saints: To record the most important words ever spoken in any language in human history!

But you're not recording them in the language they were spoken in, but translating them into another language which is completely unrelated to the source language. The Apostles derserve much respect and admiration for what must've have been incredible faith to successfully undertake this task. I have conversed with native Aramaic speakers and they've told me that there are certain concepts in this language that can give one sleepless nights over trying to accurately explain them in a completely unrelated language like Greek or English.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2009, 03:50:22 PM »

Sure I would be happy to, but I will do so in my next post as this one has become a bit long. BTW what is this forum's stance on "double posting"? Some forums forbid 2 or more posts in a row by the same user, so I just want to make sure that I don't break any rules first.
There's no rule against submitting two or three posts in a row on the same thread if you really want to do that.  However, if you submit enough consecutive posts on one topic to turn the discussion into a monologue, you might become annoying to some, but you won't have broken any forum rules. Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2009, 04:35:58 PM »

How much writing in a second language would have bothered the Gospel writers is an interesting question, though.

For the Gospels in particular Aramaic needs to be brought into the disscussion for the following reasons:

1. Aramaic was the native language of Messiah. The majority of Yeshua's sermons and parables were preached to fellow Aramaic speaking Jews, usually of the lower, uneducated classes who likely were not fluent in Greek. Yeshua had more opportunities to speak His native language than Greek. Even if the Gospel authors first recorded these sayings of Yeshua in Greek, they are still translating what He said.

2. All the Gospels authors were native Aramaic speaking Jews from Palestine, save St. Luke. But where Luke is concerned all the Fathers actually have to say about him, is that he was from Syrian Antioch and that he knew Greek, but that's it. However that does not automatically mean that he was a native Greek speaker, as Antioch was a bilingual city which consisted of both native Aramaic and native Greek speakers. Furthermore being from Syrian Antioch and knowing Greek doesn't automatically make Luke a gentile either, he could very well have been a Jew too.
We must be careful not claim that something is fact when we don't have evidence to support it.

I've never seen Antioch described as a bilingual city.  The books of Maccabbees militates against it.  And it contrasts with, say, Palmyra or Edessa, where Aramaic was spoken widely.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SOg7UGR3FrMC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Antioch+aramaic+speaking&source=bl&ots=L0gEDZH1RU&sig=QT5h6xx_t3hDYIS536J6XlOxReI&hl=en&ei=gM6eSsrbG5Cc8Qb10ZmpAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Antioch%20aramaic%20speaking&f=false
The school of Libanius in late antique Antioch By Raffaella Cribiore, p. 27.
http://books.google.com/books?id=x8LRPQp_-y8C&pg=PA49&dq=Antioch++Aramaic#v=onepage&q=Antioch%20%20Aramaic&f=false
Redefining ancient borders: the Jewish scribal framework of Matthew's Gospel By Aaron M. Gale
[also includes the saying of the ethnarch/patriarch Judah ha-Nasi who asks "why speak Aramaic in the Land of Israel.  Speak Hebrew or Greek!]
http://books.google.com/books?id=9y7nTpFcN3AC&pg=PA194&dq=Antioch++Aramaic&lr=#v=onepage&q=Antioch%20%20Aramaic&f=false
The Middle East under Rome By Maurice Sartre
http://books.google.com/books?id=uk0-ezJ_lx4C&pg=PA125&dq=Antioch++Aramaic&lr=#v=onepage&q=Antioch%20%20Aramaic&f=false
The Jews among pagans and Christians: in the Roman Empire By Judith Lieu, John A. North, Tessa Rajak

Colossians 4:10-11 contrasted to v. 14, and universal Tradition, show St. Luke was a gentile.

Quote
Now concerning if writing in a second language would've bothered the blessed Apostles:

The implications of this are enormous considering that they are essentially translating what was spoken by God in the flesh! And what's more, Yeshua's Disciples at times had great difficulty understanding some of His parables, and in their native language to boot!

Please, don't interpret this to mean that I'm doubting the power of the Holy Spirit, surely not. But I want you to try and contemplate the magnitude of the task God Almighty designated to these 4 saints: To record the most important words ever spoken in any language in human history!

But you're not recording them in the language they were spoken in, but translating them into another language which is completely unrelated to the source language. The Apostles derserve much respect and admiration for what must've have been incredible faith to successfully undertake this task. I have conversed with native Aramaic speakers and they've told me that there are certain concepts in this language that can give one sleepless nights over trying to accurately explain them in a completely unrelated language like Greek or English.

If the Church had to worry about that, the Scriptures would never be translated.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2009, 05:01:25 PM »


My native language is English, but I also speak (and teach) Spanish. I can tell you that although my students often do translate their thoughts from English to Spanish, there is a point at which one no longer needs to do so, but can simply think in Spanish. Sometimes I will talk to a student in Spanish and then need to translate what I just said into English.

I understand what you're saying but things can get very complicated when you are dealing with two completely unrelated languages. English and Spanish are both Indo-European languages, Greek is Indo-European while Aramaic (and Hebrew) is Semitic. And languages are more than words; idioms and concepts are involved too. In some cases a common concept is understood differently in Semitic thought than in Greco-Roman thought. There are also cases where the two languages don't share a concept at all. Though I'd rather not delve into specifics at this point as I fear it will take this thread into places I don't want it to go.

That's like saying the Semites can't understand modern engineering, because all the modern advances have been done in Indo-European or Finno-Uralic.

Much of the corpus of Classical Greek Philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) survives only in Arabic translation.

Yes, its a problem, but no, its not insurmountable. The Early Church, at least unto Chalcedon, managed in Indo-European, Semitic, Caucasan, Nilo-Saharan and Dravidian.  I submit than any problematic nuances still left fall under I Timothy 6:4


If I may, I'd suggest you are over-simplifying a little with your simile. There's a big difference between not understanding something, and conceptualising something in a different way. If you're responding through the prism of a second language, you'll understand all right, but there will be a particular inflection to your understanding that you might not have had if you hadn't had two languages in the mix. But perhaps I am making too much of this - I agree the problem's not insurmountable. I think language-learning and its effect on the brain are fascinating, and I suspect I'm being a bit of a psychology geek here!
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2009, 05:54:11 PM »

Thank you brother Peter for the clarification. OK first, the Nazrene doctrine of the Godhead:

Summary:

We believe in one God, YHWH Almighty who eternally consists of at least 3 qnume (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), in one kyana (nature).

Now to the specifics:

Elohim: the most common Hebrew word for "God" in the Tanakh. Elohim is gramatically plural. YHWH is called Elohim most of the time in the Hebrew Tanakh to emphasize His ulimited power, glory and majesty. In our liturgy we address YHWH as Elohim.

YHWH: The Sacred Name of God as revealed to Moses, of which we are not 100% sure how to pronounce. Some Nazarenes insist on pronouncing it as Yahweh (scholarly concenses) or Yahwah (from the Samaritan liturgy), some refuse to and use acceptable substitutes like HaShem (The Name), Yah (the shortened version found in the Targums) or MarYah (Master Yah, the substitute given in the Peshitta). We generally do not like to use Adonai (The Lord) as we feel it's not specific enough, and Jehovah or Yehovah are not accepted because the vowels are artifical (borrowed from Adonai). The synagogue I attend uses MarYah as both the Father and the Son are called MarYah in the Peshitta. I have chosen when writing God's name to only write it without vowels (YHWH), because that's how His name appears in the Hebrew text and was originally written by Moses. Most of our Siddurim (Prayer books) print the Tetragrammaton without vowels as well.

Qnume: The Aramaic word qnuma (singular, qnume, plural) has caused many native Aramaic speakers countless headaches throughtout the centuries. I will try my best to explain what it means, with quotations from experts for those interested. But I'll have to save that for another thread as the topic is too delicate and complex to treat it in brief. What I will say for now is the most important thing to grasp about it: Qnuma is a concept that doesn't exist in any language but Aramaic, not even Hebrew, it's closest sister language! The closest possible meaning is "substance" (hypotasis/substantia), but it's not an exact match - there is no exact match! My only humble request for those who want to discuss qnuma is:

Please always keep in mind that Aramaic is completely different to Greek/Latin/English, and to please not try to force qnuma in what you think is a Greek/Latin/English equivalent because there are none! Please, I beg you, don't treat Aramaic like Greek/Latin/English but for what it is - a language that is completely different and unrelated to them. To do otherwise is to invite disaster!

at least 3 qnuma: Trinity is a term that we generally prefer to avoid when describing the Godhead. The chief reason for this we feel that it limits YHWH:

{1 Kings 8:27} "But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built!

God is infinite and ineffable, His vastness and grandiosity is beyond human comprehension. Because of this we believe in the possibility that God may not have revealed everything about His nature. While we recognize that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the 3 qnume of His kyanna (nature) revealed in Scripture, there is a verse which suggests that He may in fact consist of more:

{Isaiah 11:2} The Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH.

And hence the 7 Spirits of Revelation 1:4

1. Spirit of YHWH
2. Spirit of Wisdom
3. Spirit of Understanding
4. Spirit of Counsel
5. Spirit of Might
6. Spirit of Knowledge
7. Spirit of the Fear of YHWH

These Spirits are symbolized by two of Judaism's most commonly recognized symbols: the Menorah and the Star of David.

Only God knows how many qnume and attributes consist within His nature, while we will say 3 qnume, we are reluctant to declare only 3 qnume as emphatic dogma, out of fear we may have spoken falsely of that which we do not know. But even if YHWH Elohim's nature only consists of 3 qnuma we still feel that Trinity is an incomplete explantion because He is still infinite, eternal, outside time and cannot be contained by any number. So instead of Trinity we describe YHWH as ekhad, as per the Shema:

{Deuteronomy 6:4} "Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is ekhad!

The Hebrew word ekhad (Aramaic khad) means one in both an exclusively singular sense and in a collective sense but number isn't specified (eg: one bunch of grapes). So this is the term we prefer to use instead of Trinity, because YHWH is only one deity, and because ekhad reveals His plurarity without applying mathematics to it. And for the much simpler reason - there is no other explicit statement in Scripture on the plurality of God's nature while the word Trinity itself is not in Scripture.

Kyana: Aramaic for nature. Unlike qnuma kyana is always singular. Just as there's only one human nature, there is only one divine nature.

Next, all about Yeshua the Messiah, including His nature and incarnation...

« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 06:00:45 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2009, 06:04:45 PM »

Nazarene,

What you say about the natures of God is fascinating. I do know what you mean about that feeling of being right on the edge/ over of human capacity when you think about the Trinity. Can you explain something for me? I don't see why linking the concept of God to a larger range of numbers helps you not to limit that concept. What was the theology behind that, can you explain?

Good to have you on the forum, it's very interesting!

Liz.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2009, 06:28:15 PM »

Thank you brother Peter for the clarification. OK first, the Nazrene doctrine of the Godhead:

Summary:

We believe in one God, YHWH Almighty who eternally consists of at least 3 qnume (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), in one kyana (nature).

Now to the specifics:

Elohim: the most common Hebrew word for "God" in the Tanakh. Elohim is gramatically plural. YHWH is called Elohim most of the time in the Hebrew Tanakh to emphasize His ulimited power, glory and majesty. In our liturgy we address YHWH as Elohim.

YHWH: The Sacred Name of God as revealed to Moses, of which we are not 100% sure how to pronounce. Some Nazarenes insist on pronouncing it as Yahweh (scholarly concenses) or Yahwah (from the Samaritan liturgy), some refuse to and use acceptable substitutes like HaShem (The Name), Yah (the shortened version found in the Targums) or MarYah (Master Yah, the substitute given in the Peshitta). We generally do not like to use Adonai (The Lord) as we feel it's not specific enough, and Jehovah or Yehovah are not accepted because the vowels are artifical (borrowed from Adonai). The synagogue I attend uses MarYah as both the Father and the Son are called MarYah in the Peshitta. I have chosen when writing God's name to only write it without vowels (YHWH), because that's how His name appears in the Hebrew text and was originally written by Moses. Most of our Siddurim (Prayer books) print the Tetragrammaton without vowels as well.

Qnume: The Aramaic word qnuma (singular, qnume, plural) has caused many native Aramaic speakers countless headaches throughtout the centuries. I will try my best to explain what it means, with quotations from experts for those interested. But I'll have to save that for another thread as the topic is too delicate and complex to treat it in brief. What I will say for now is the most important thing to grasp about it: Qnuma is a concept that doesn't exist in any language but Aramaic, not even Hebrew, it's closest sister language! The closest possible meaning is "substance" (hypotasis/substantia), but it's not an exact match - there is no exact match! My only humble request for those who want to discuss qnuma is:

Please always keep in mind that Aramaic is completely different to Greek/Latin/English, and to please not try to force qnuma in what you think is a Greek/Latin/English equivalent because there are none! Please, I beg you, don't treat Aramaic like Greek/Latin/English but for what it is - a language that is completely different and unrelated to them. To do otherwise is to invite disaster!

at least 3 qnuma: Trinity is a term that we generally prefer to avoid when describing the Godhead. The chief reason for this we feel that it limits YHWH:

{1 Kings 8:27} "But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built!

God is infinite and ineffable, His vastness and grandiosity is beyond human comprehension. Because of this we believe in the possibility that God may not have revealed everything about His nature. While we recognize that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the 3 qnume of His kyanna (nature) revealed in Scripture, there is a verse which suggests that He may in fact consist of more:

{Isaiah 11:2} The Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH.

And hence the 7 Spirits of Revelation 1:4

1. Spirit of YHWH
2. Spirit of Wisdom
3. Spirit of Understanding
4. Spirit of Counsel
5. Spirit of Might
6. Spirit of Knowledge
7. Spirit of the Fear of YHWH

These Spirits are symbolized by two of Judaism's most commonly recognized symbols: the Menorah and the Star of David.

Only God knows how many qnume and attributes consist within His nature, while we will say 3 qnume, we are reluctant to declare only 3 qnume as emphatic dogma, out of fear we may have spoken falsely of that which we do not know. But even if YHWH Elohim's nature only consists of 3 qnuma we still feel that Trinity is an incomplete explantion because He is still infinite, eternal, outside time and cannot be contained by any number. So instead of Trinity we describe YHWH as ekhad, as per the Shema:

{Deuteronomy 6:4} "Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is ekhad!

The Hebrew word ekhad (Aramaic khad) means one in both an exclusively singular sense and in a collective sense but number isn't specified (eg: one bunch of grapes). So this is the term we prefer to use instead of Trinity, because YHWH is only one deity, and because ekhad reveals His plurarity without applying mathematics to it. And for the much simpler reason - there is no other explicit statement in Scripture on the plurality of God's nature while the word Trinity itself is not in Scripture.

Kyana: Aramaic for nature. Unlike qnuma kyana is always singular. Just as there's only one human nature, there is only one divine nature.

Next, all about Yeshua the Messiah, including His nature and incarnation...



Isaiah 11:
Quote
וְנָחָ֥ה עָלָ֖יו ר֣וּחַ יְהוָ֑ה ר֧וּחַ חָכְמָ֣ה וּבִינָ֗ה ר֤וּחַ עֵצָה֙ וּגְבוּרָ֔ה ר֥וּחַ דַּ֖עַת וְיִרְאַ֥ת יְהוָֽה׃
Quote
καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ' αὐτὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας

In both you have only one Spirit: the whole verse is apposition, not conjunctive.

Christ commanded us to be baptized in the Name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, etc. . If there was any more hypostasis, He would have told us so.  Hence, the Orthodox have no such reluctance.  Three angles at Mamre when the LORD spoke to Father Abraham, three Hypostasis:

http://theklines.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/trinity-rublev.jpg

God not being contained by His Own essence gets into the Essence/Engeries, which all Three share as One.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2009, 06:35:02 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept. Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 06:39:45 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2009, 06:43:46 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept.


Ok - but a concept is a product of the understanding, no? So, at what point do you say you've got two different understandings and therefore two different concepts?

Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
[/quote]

Because English has a paucity of words, and because 'persons' was less likely to be interpreted simply as a synonym for 'people' at the time when this term became common.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2009, 06:58:39 PM »

I do find this discussion quite interesting. Nazarene, you said in an earlier post that the Scriptures are chanted from Hebrew & Aramaic and I really find this fascinating. I would like to know more about what the services are like in the Messianic circle. Also, what about dress for men; is a shawl worn or just a yarmulke? Do you lay on teffilin during prayer and other such Jewish practices?
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2009, 06:58:51 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept. Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
For the people who speak English and not Greek. It's also why we call Jesus by his English name. There's just something unnatural about people becoming more ethnic after their conversion.

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 07:00:11 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2009, 07:34:26 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept. Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
For the people who speak English and not Greek. It's also why we call Jesus by his English name. There's just something unnatural about people becoming more ethnic after their conversion.

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 07:34:49 PM by Liz » Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2009, 04:32:45 AM »

Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.

I'm Podlachian Belarus, live in Poland and never been to Greece but I definitely call Mary - Theotokos.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2009, 06:42:44 AM »

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Thanks for the grammar correction. As for whether it is better to stick to the Greek term, I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. For a Jew, I don't advise translating hypostasis into English as "person" but rather explaining what it means in Greek. This is how we do things with Hebrew and Aramaic, we prefer not to translate the word into English but rather explain what it means in Hebrew/Aramaic, because after all there are few Hebrew and Aramaic words that can be translated into one English word (a direct cognate). And that's only dealing with "dictionary definitions" and not getting into the subject of idioms and spiritual implications.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 06:43:40 AM by Nazarene » Logged
mersch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: converting to orthodoxy, seems to be on hold
Posts: 248



« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2009, 02:57:39 PM »


Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.
[/quote]


I've heard Theotokos consistently here, (Kansas city area), but haven't been to a Greek orthodox church, nor do I know anyone that I am aware that is Greek
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 02:59:08 PM by mersch » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,043



« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2009, 03:53:12 PM »

So what do you want to know?

Do you practise prayer for the dead and ask for intercession of the saints? If I've understanded correctly at least some of the Jews do and I'm curious whether the Nazarene follow this practise.

And what about your worship. What is it like? Is it liturgical? Do you have an English translation online anywhere?
Logged

katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2009, 05:05:13 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept. Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
For the people who speak English and not Greek. It's also why we call Jesus by his English name. There's just something unnatural about people becoming more ethnic after their conversion.

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.

The only Greek I know is "baklava," but I refer to her as the Theotokos, as do all the members of my OCA English-speaking parish. (all right, all right, so we're Southern and we really speak a "form" of English, nevertheless...!) It's actually pretty standard usage amongst us Orthodox.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM »

In a nutshell different understanding of the same concept. Just one question:

If you say that the Trinity consists of 3 hypostasis then why do you call them "persons" in English?
For the people who speak English and not Greek. It's also why we call Jesus by his English name. There's just something unnatural about people becoming more ethnic after their conversion.

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.
I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2009, 05:45:38 PM »

As I noticed we have a new member on the forum , wich is an Messianic Jew , i taught i would open this thread.Is the Messianic Judaism a cult?How is their worship , when did it appear?What doctrines do they have and what dogmas?

I'm not looking at anything right now so I can't really go into detail, but from what I can recall, they mostly come from either the Southern Baptists or Assembly of God protestant denominations. At least, that is where their """ethos / template""" comes from.


You have some that are Prespyterian, but as far as I know, they still are not allowed to form their own churches, whereas the other ones (Baptist and Assembly of God) are.


It's mostly a modern movement, but I have to review and skimm through some books I have laying around in order to go into more detail.









Jnorm888
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 05:55:20 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2009, 05:54:06 PM »

Jews for Jesus are not Nazarenes, they are Jewish converts to Protestant Christianity who evangelize Rabbinical Jews. We are not part of Protestantism, though some of us to come from Protestant or Roman Catholic backgrounds. We worship on Shabbat and observe the Torah, and that's really as anti-Protestant as you can get.
Oh, I don't know.  There are a number of Protestant denominations that worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), and some even strive to follow some of the dietary laws of the Torah.  Seventh Day Adventists come particularly to mind here.

The 7nth day Baptists, as well as the Worldwide church of God international. There is a small oneness pentecostal sect in Alabama that tries to keep the 7nth day as well, but I don't know what their official name is. They follow a man by the name "the apostle Ford".











Jnorm888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2009, 05:58:08 PM »

Does your Messianic 'church/synagogue' worship with guitars and PowerPoint?  I'm actually serious, and not trying to be patronizing at all.

Some do, the more charismatic ones come from the Assembly of God background. The noncharismatic ones mostly come from the Southern Baptist line/stream.







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2009, 06:47:59 PM »

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Thanks for the grammar correction. As for whether it is better to stick to the Greek term, I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. For a Jew, I don't advise translating hypostasis into English as "person" but rather explaining what it means in Greek. This is how we do things with Hebrew and Aramaic, we prefer not to translate the word into English but rather explain what it means in Hebrew/Aramaic, because after all there are few Hebrew and Aramaic words that can be translated into one English word (a direct cognate). And that's only dealing with "dictionary definitions" and not getting into the subject of idioms and spiritual implications.

It depends on where you go though. In my parish whenever the term comes up we always say hypostasis. I like that better than "person". I think it's good to keep it as is and not translate the word because you lose meaning. The same goes for "Logos" since "word" doesn't really do it justice since "Logos" is very complex and "word" doesn't capture the full meaning really. I was shown the entry for "Logos" in a patristic dictionary and it takes up a few pages. One of the reasons why I like the Orthodox New Testament published by Holy Apostle's Convent is because they don't translate "Logos" but just leaves it as is and that way with explanation, the meaning can be better understood.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2009, 09:30:47 PM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2009, 12:46:50 AM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

What a beautiful buffet!  A dash of Talmudic Judaism, a drop of 'Charismatic' Protestantism, and presto:  a new religion.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2009, 01:01:28 PM »

Shalom again. OK for the questions about worship, asked by Andrew and Alpo:

I do find this discussion quite interesting. Nazarene, you said in an earlier post that the Scriptures are chanted from Hebrew & Aramaic and I really find this fascinating. I would like to know more about what the services are like in the Messianic circle. Also, what about dress for men; is a shawl worn or just a yarmulke? Do you lay on teffilin during prayer and other such Jewish practices?

The Hebrew and Aramaic chanting is of the Masoretic text and the "Nestorian" Peshitta NT, using the pronunciation of the Yemenite Jews for the Hebrew and the Assyrian Church of the East for the Aramaic.

In my synagogue we use the Triennial Torah Parshot (lectionary) rather than the Annual one used by most Jews because it gives more flexibility for readings from the NT. We read from the Torah, Prophets, Gospels and Epistles every Shabbat and chant the Tehillim (Psalms). Readings from the Writings like Song of Songs or Revelation are only read on Feast days. We recite the Shema and the Lord's Prayer during every Shabbat service, currently the only "icons" to be found in our santuary are the Cross, the Fish, the Star of David, the Menorah, and the Name YHWH in paleo-Hebrew script. We have no chairs or pews, we sit on rugs - men on the right and women on the left, because when we do our "kneeling" prayers, we do so on all fours with our foreheads touching the ground. We enter the sanctury barefoot after washing our hands and feet. That's for the actual synagogue service, there is also of course the opening and closing services which are done in the home.

For our daily prayers, we pray the Lord's prayer 3 times per day and the recite the Shema twice a day, with appropriate Psalms for morning, evening and mealtimes. Before praying we recite hand washing blessings.

Some of the men do lay on teffilim but this is not mandatory because not everyone interprets "bind them to your forehead and right hand" literally. Since the Apostle Paul clearly said that it is the women who are to cover their heads, it is the women who wear tallit (prayer shawls/veils) with tzitzit (tassles on the four corners) on their heads. The men may wear them on their shoulders but not their heads, and they may not wear yarmulkes.

So what do you want to know?

Do you practise prayer for the dead and ask for intercession of the saints? If I've understanded correctly at least some of the Jews do and I'm curious whether the Nazarene follow this practise.

At the moment no but we are looking into whether to permit it or not. Our principle is to only make what is specifically commanded by YHWH and His Son mandatory, everything else, as long as it doesn't conflict with what is commanded is optional. Prayer for the dead and asking saints for their intercession are not commanded in the Torah or by Yeshua, and we cannot find an example of this practice in the Prophets or Epistles of the Apostles. We do acknowledge that they are Jewish traditions in antiquity and are done by some Jews today. We do not look down on anyone who does these things, whether they are Jewish or Christian, though we will probably never make this practice mandatory. But this is not to say that we don't honour past saints in our prayers or liturgy.

And what about your worship. What is it like? Is it liturgical? Do you have an English translation online anywhere?

Yes our worship is certainly liturgical though at the moment it resembles synagogue worship more so than temple worship. I'm afraid that I don't have an electronic texts for the services my congregation uses, but here are a few sources to give you an idea of "mainstream" Messianic worship:

http://www.servant2000.org/Siddur/Siddur%20book%20cover%20Rev%20B.pdf (Weekdays & Shabbat)
http://messianicdefenseleague.com/Documents/Siddur.pdf (Shabbat & Festivals)
http://www.tushiyah.org/hRH.pdf (Pesakh/Paskha Haggadah)
http://www.torahwellsprings.org/Pages/parsha.htm (Triennial Torah Parshot)

Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2009, 02:32:05 PM »


Right, and that's why I've never heard any non-Greek Orthodox refer to the bearer of Christ as Theotokos.

It reflects badly on me to have to admit I was being a tad sarcastic when I said this. I know lots of Orthodox who aren't Greek say Theokotos. I was trying to suggest that Nazarene's rather extensive sprinkling of non-English terms through posts isn't necessarily to do with becoming 'more ethnic after conversion', as ytterbiumanalyst was I think suggest, but maybe more to do with the way all of us sometimes reach towards our religion's parent language.

Quote

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Fair point, yes. I apologise for being a bit sarcastic.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2009, 02:53:32 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2009, 02:57:04 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know

INCONCEIVABLE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI  (note: link is to a montage of scenes from the film "The Princess Bride")

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2009, 03:45:10 PM »

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Thanks for the grammar correction. As for whether it is better to stick to the Greek term, I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. For a Jew, I don't advise translating hypostasis into English as "person" but rather explaining what it means in Greek. This is how we do things with Hebrew and Aramaic, we prefer not to translate the word into English but rather explain what it means in Hebrew/Aramaic, because after all there are few Hebrew and Aramaic words that can be translated into one English word (a direct cognate). And that's only dealing with "dictionary definitions" and not getting into the subject of idioms and spiritual implications.

It depends on where you go though. In my parish whenever the term comes up we always say hypostasis. I like that better than "person". I think it's good to keep it as is and not translate the word because you lose meaning. The same goes for "Logos" since "word" doesn't really do it justice since "Logos" is very complex and "word" doesn't capture the full meaning really. I was shown the entry for "Logos" in a patristic dictionary and it takes up a few pages. One of the reasons why I like the Orthodox New Testament published by Holy Apostle's Convent is because they don't translate "Logos" but just leaves it as is and that way with explanation, the meaning can be better understood.

Oh I can certainly relate. There is an interlinear translation of the Peshitta Gospels which also takes this approach to the Aramaic word Miltha, see this.

I'm actually quite interestind in how Miltha compares with Logos. Can you give an "amplified" translation of Logos, so to speak?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2009, 05:28:53 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know

Well ... that'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just used a word incorrectly! (you typed which and mean whose).  Wink
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2009, 06:11:34 PM »

Nevertheless, I have alot of respect for these Messianic Jews who live in Israel. They have to deal with alot of persecution for their beliefs.
Logged
Catherine
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 453


« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2009, 06:15:08 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know

Well ... that'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just used a word incorrectly! (you typed which and mean whose).  Wink




Us inglish are watching your every move, Mike.  laugh
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2009, 08:45:34 PM »

Shalom again. OK for the questions about worship, asked by Andrew and Alpo:

I do find this discussion quite interesting. Nazarene, you said in an earlier post that the Scriptures are chanted from Hebrew & Aramaic and I really find this fascinating. I would like to know more about what the services are like in the Messianic circle. Also, what about dress for men; is a shawl worn or just a yarmulke? Do you lay on teffilin during prayer and other such Jewish practices?

The Hebrew and Aramaic chanting is of the Masoretic text and the "Nestorian" Peshitta NT, using the pronunciation of the Yemenite Jews for the Hebrew and the Assyrian Church of the East for the Aramaic.

In my synagogue we use the Triennial Torah Parshot (lectionary) rather than the Annual one used by most Jews because it gives more flexibility for readings from the NT. We read from the Torah, Prophets, Gospels and Epistles every Shabbat and chant the Tehillim (Psalms). Readings from the Writings like Song of Songs or Revelation are only read on Feast days. We recite the Shema and the Lord's Prayer during every Shabbat service, currently the only "icons" to be found in our santuary are the Cross, the Fish, the Star of David, the Menorah, and the Name YHWH in paleo-Hebrew script. We have no chairs or pews, we sit on rugs - men on the right and women on the left, because when we do our "kneeling" prayers, we do so on all fours with our foreheads touching the ground. We enter the sanctury barefoot after washing our hands and feet. That's for the actual synagogue service, there is also of course the opening and closing services which are done in the home.

For our daily prayers, we pray the Lord's prayer 3 times per day and the recite the Shema twice a day, with appropriate Psalms for morning, evening and mealtimes. Before praying we recite hand washing blessings.

Some of the men do lay on teffilim but this is not mandatory because not everyone interprets "bind them to your forehead and right hand" literally. Since the Apostle Paul clearly said that it is the women who are to cover their heads, it is the women who wear tallit (prayer shawls/veils) with tzitzit (tassles on the four corners) on their heads. The men may wear them on their shoulders but not their heads, and they may not wear yarmulkes.

Very interesting. Thanks for answering. I'm surprised to see that the Messianics actually separate men and women. This is still practiced by the Oriental Orthodox Church and some Russian churches but most Christians have abandoned this practice. As also with the prostrations to the group which used to be a very large part of Eastern Orthodox practice but it's not done much anymore these days outside of Lent (and the introduction of pews has also been a problem) with the exception of Old Rite Churches who have stayed faithful to this old practice of doing prostrations during the Liturgy at appointed times. Prostrations are also commonly done in Oriental Churches and also with Ethiopians and I believe Coptics as well also remove their shoes when in church. I'm seeing similarities which I find fascinating and I see that the Nazarenes are using very traditional practices which were done in the early Church for example saying the Our Father three times which is written in the Didache and doing the other practices I have wrote about.

I am surprised by the practices that are kept at your synagogue. I wouldn't have guessed that such traditional practices are used the Messianic Jews. To be honest, my impression of Messianic Judaism was that it was just some Protestant thing where they wanted to be more Jewish and kind of adopted some Jewish practices but pretty much worshiped as Protestants with bands and some other weird stuff that really wouldn't resemble anything traditional. Such is my ignorance.

Now, I don't know if this was answered, is communion taken in Messianic temples? If so, do you believe in the actual presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the Holy Mystery? In Orthodoxy, this is essential. Many Protestants believe it is only a symbol of the Body and Blood so what is the Messianic take on; it if it has one?

Thank you for answering these questions. I'm learning a lot about something I was very ignorant of before.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:46:05 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2009, 02:47:14 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know

Well ... that'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just used a word incorrectly! (you typed which and mean whose).  Wink




Us inglish are watching your every move, Mike.  laugh

Cheesy
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2009, 03:55:16 PM »

I've never heard any English-speaker use the term without knowing what it means in English.

Usually people don't use words which meaning they don't know

Well ... that'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just used a word incorrectly! (you typed which and mean whose).  Wink




Us inglish are watching your every move, Mike.  laugh

Cheesy

Yep, sorry, *puts on the pedant's cap* ;-)
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2009, 12:44:48 AM »


I have studied a bit about the Assyrian Church of the East, and have some friends who are members but not the other Syrian churches like the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Christians of India. Please do feel free to recommend reading materials or users on this forum who are members of these churches for answering questions.

I was just understanding how you felt Syrian Christianity compared to Messianic Judaism? If perhaps you identify with them much more closely than other stands of Christianity?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2009, 12:49:49 AM »


and that your church's is looking for a Hebrew equivalent of the Western Rite Orthodox?

That would be awesome. Probably the Jewish liturgy completed with elements of the Syriac Liturgy of James.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2009, 01:08:10 AM »

BTW, "hypostasis" is singular; "hypostases" is the plural. Still wish we'd stick with the Greek term?

Thanks for the grammar correction. As for whether it is better to stick to the Greek term, I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. For a Jew, I don't advise translating hypostasis into English as "person" but rather explaining what it means in Greek. This is how we do things with Hebrew and Aramaic, we prefer not to translate the word into English but rather explain what it means in Hebrew/Aramaic, because after all there are few Hebrew and Aramaic words that can be translated into one English word (a direct cognate). And that's only dealing with "dictionary definitions" and not getting into the subject of idioms and spiritual implications.

I tend to agree. "Person" could just as easily be a translation of "prosopon", so it's not great to translate it as such.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #60 on: September 06, 2009, 08:54:24 AM »

Shalom to all,


and that your church's is looking for a Hebrew equivalent of the Western Rite Orthodox?

That would be awesome. Probably the Jewish liturgy completed with elements of the Syriac Liturgy of James.

Awesome indeed! And yes we are certainly looking to incorporate elements from St. Jame's liturgy, and also the Anaphora of Addai & Mari. What we are basically looking to restore is the ancient Nazarene rite of Jerusalem, instituted by no doubt the then Bishop of Jerusalem - St. James. I'm not sure if we should necessarily classify it as "western", it did originate west of the Euphrates but there were Nazarenes in Mesopotamia and India too. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, most Nazarenes went east instead of west. This why I prefer to call it the "Hebraic rite", the classification being cultural instead of geographic.


I have studied a bit about the Assyrian Church of the East, and have some friends who are members but not the other Syrian churches like the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Christians of India. Please do feel free to recommend reading materials or users on this forum who are members of these churches for answering questions.

I was just understanding how you felt Syrian Christianity compared to Messianic Judaism? If perhaps you identify with them much more closely than other stands of Christianity?

Actually yes you are correct in your assumption, because Syrian Christianity is Semitic in custom and uses the language of Yeshua and His Apostles. So Syrian Christianity is our primary focuss, also because the Syrian church was predominantly Jewish for a longer period of time than the Greek church, which became predominantly gentile soon after St. John's death.




« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 08:59:50 AM by Nazarene » Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2009, 04:27:47 PM »

Shalom to all,


and that your church's is looking for a Hebrew equivalent of the Western Rite Orthodox?

That would be awesome. Probably the Jewish liturgy completed with elements of the Syriac Liturgy of James.

I'm not sure if we should necessarily classify it as "western", it did originate west of the Euphrates but there were Nazarenes in Mesopotamia and India too. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, most Nazarenes went east instead of west. This why I prefer to call it the "Hebraic rite", the classification being cultural instead of geographic.

I think what he meant is make a Hebrew equivalent of the Western Rite that Orthodoxy has. The "Hebraic rite" wouldn't be like the Western Rite but it would have the same principle in the way since it would be another rite. There are Eastern Rite and Western and the Western is newer so ialmisry is saying that a "Hebraic rite" can also be established like the Western Rite was. The Orthodox Church also has the Old-Rite also. He's not saying that it would be like the Western-Rite since I think it would be quite different.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2009, 04:49:56 PM »

Oh OK, now I understand.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 07, 2009, 07:55:29 PM »


Awesome indeed! And yes we are certainly looking to incorporate elements from St. Jame's liturgy, and also the Anaphora of Addai & Mari. What we are basically looking to restore is the ancient Nazarene rite of Jerusalem, instituted by no doubt the then Bishop of Jerusalem - St. James. I'm not sure if we should necessarily classify it as "western", it did originate west of the Euphrates but there were Nazarenes in Mesopotamia and India too. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, most Nazarenes went east instead of west. This why I prefer to call it the "Hebraic rite", the classification being cultural instead of geographic.

Well, while those of the Assyrian Church of the East divide "East" and "West" according to the Euphrates, this is not so with most other Christian traditions. More typically it is understood that anything of the Western Roman Empire or west of it was Western Christianity, while anything of the Eastern Roman Empire or east of it was Eastern Christianity. A Hebraic rite, thus, would clearly be an Eastern rite because it originally developed within the Eastern Roman Empire. The person you were responding to was simply asking if it would be equivalent to the Western rites, in so far as it retains the independent liturgical rite while accepting the faith and practice of the Orthodox Church.


Actually yes you are correct in your assumption, because Syrian Christianity is Semitic in custom and uses the language of Yeshua and His Apostles. So Syrian Christianity is our primary focus

Then I would recommend that you study the Syriac Orthodox Church on top of the studies you are already doing of the Assyrian Church of the East.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 07, 2009, 07:57:25 PM »


Next, all about Yeshua the Messiah, including His nature and incarnation...

Are you still planning on making a post about Christology?

I'm particularly interested in this because Christology within Syrian Christianity is quite diverse.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2009, 05:57:14 PM »

Well, while those of the Assyrian Church of the East divide "East" and "West" according to the Euphrates, this is not so with most other Christian traditions. More typically it is understood that anything of the Western Roman Empire or west of it was Western Christianity, while anything of the Eastern Roman Empire or east of it was Eastern Christianity.
A Hebraic rite, thus, would clearly be an Eastern rite because it originally developed within the Eastern Roman Empire.

Yes true, but the Nazarene understanding of east and west is actually derived from Scripture:

{Matthew 2:1} Now when Yeshua was born in Bet-Lekhem of Yehudah in the days of Herod the king, Magoshi came from the east to Jerusalem. (Peshitta)

{Revelation 16:12} And the sixth angel poured his bowl on the great river, Euphrates, and its water dried up to prepare the road for the kings from the east. (Peshitta)

Of course the NT was written before the Roman empire split into east and west, so back in the first century “the east” was the Persian empire which was east of the Euphrates. This was also the Jewish understanding before the first century and is still today, so I would say this is the traditional Jewish understanding of east and west and that's why we’ve chosen to keep it.

The person you were responding to was simply asking if it would be equivalent to the Western rites, in so far as it retains the independent liturgical rite while accepting the faith and practice of the Orthodox Church.

Oh I see. Well then in that case yes, that’s exactly what it will be.

Then I would recommend that you study the Syriac Orthodox Church on top of the studies you are already doing of the Assyrian Church of the East.

I will do so, this is one of the reasons I joined this forum. I also visit the ACE’s forum but I don’t post there as it’s not very bussy. The forum at peshitta.org (run of an ACE deacon) is also useful but the site manager disabled the registration link before I discovered it so I can’t post there, but this forum is more focussed on the Peshitta than on the ACE itself. And of course we can’t forget the Mar Toma Nasranis (St. Thomas Christians of India).


Next, all about Yeshua the Messiah, including His nature and incarnation...

Are you still planning on making a post about Christology?

I'm particularly interested in this because Christology within Syrian Christianity is quite diverse.

I am though at the moment I’m struggling a bit to find the “words to say”. This has been a very sensitive issue throughout Church history, and I don’t want to treat it lightly. The thing I need everyone here to understand is that the average Nazarene Malpana (Aramaic for teacher, we only call Yeshua "Rabbi") are not as well versed in the Christological controversies as your average Orthodox Priest for two reasons:

1) The historical Nazarenes were not involved in the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus or Chalcedon. By this time most Nazarenes were either killed or absorbed into the ACE and to a lesser extent the Roman Church. While the movement was still around during Jerome’s day it was basically almost extinct by this time. Modern Nazarenes are at the moment more concerned with Christian history pre-Constantine, when Jewish Christianity was still vibrant in the west (Roman empire) and predominant in the east (Persian empire). We want to deal with our own history first, before we do proper studies on the independent histories of our Gentile brethren.

2) Where Yeshua our Messiah is concerned, modern Nazarenes are primarily focussed on proving to the unbelieving Children of Abraham that He is the promised Messiah of Israel. Delving deep into the specifics of the Incarnation, and the relation between Messiah’s humanity and divinity is at the moment considered less important than demonstrating that He fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

What I can say for now is that our Christology resembles that of the ACE more than any other church. And so we, like them, confess that Yeshua the Messiah is both 100% man and 100% God, that He is one parsopa (person) who consists of 2 kyane (natures) which are preserved in their qnume.

Before I can properly go into detail on how Messiah’s humanity and divinity are united in His parsopa, I need to first talk about Yeshua’s eternal existence as the Miltha (Logos) of God from the Scripture of the Apostles – the writings of the Hebrew Prophets. In the next post (hopefully tomorrow) I will talk about the pre-Incarnate Miltha’s presence in the Tanakh as the “word of YHWH” and “arm of YHWH”. I apologise if I’m taking my time with this but I really want to try my best to properly represent how I understand our Saviour and King, and what He did for us, I will appreciate your patience.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,301



« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2009, 10:47:03 PM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

What a beautiful buffet!  A dash of Talmudic Judaism, a drop of 'Charismatic' Protestantism, and presto:  a new religion.

If there were ever any astroturf, I believe Messianic Judaism would take the cake of being astroturf Christianity par excellence. It seems like they are trying to recreate the Church, but in Judaizer fashion. I thought Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism? Does Messianic Judaism have any connection to the Church that Christ our Lord started? It just looks like as Alveus Lacuna alluded to some Protestant Christianity with lots of Jewish interpolations.

My prayers are for these people that they will come to know the Orthodox Church as the continuity of Judaism, not this invention, however well-meaning it may be.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2009, 01:06:49 AM »

Nazarene

What about the Eucharist ?

what do you believe about it ?

In Jesus and Mary

Altar Server
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #68 on: November 26, 2009, 04:51:26 AM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

Yes, the video is interesting, especially the part about Messianic Jews' insistence on not being Christians.

Reading the New Testament, I've noticed that the apostles neither identified themselves as Christians nor addressed other believers as Christians. I've often wondered whether believers have hurt their witness to Jews by using the terms "Christian" and "Christianity." For the Old Testament nowhere predicts that the Messiah would start a new religion. Where in the New Testament do we read that Jesus or his apostles spoke of starting a new religion?

I've run into Jews who equate Jesus with the false prophet warned of in Deuteronomy 13:1-5. They acknowledge Jesus' miracles, but reject him for starting a new religion that they say leads people to depart from Torah and the true God.

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #69 on: November 26, 2009, 04:58:51 AM »

Oh OK, now I understand.

Nazarene, does your congregation have any policy on accepting or rejecting Bible translations? What versions of Scripture are preferred or rejected where you worship?
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 26, 2009, 05:03:04 AM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

Yes, the video is interesting, especially the part about Messianic Jews' insistence on not being Christians.

Gee I wonder what they are then? The sure as sugar aren't Jews.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #71 on: November 26, 2009, 05:52:55 AM »

Reading the New Testament, I've noticed that the apostles neither identified themselves as Christians nor addressed other believers as Christians. I've often wondered whether believers have hurt their witness to Jews by using the terms "Christian" and "Christianity." For the Old Testament nowhere predicts that the Messiah would start a new religion. Where in the New Testament do we read that Jesus or his apostles spoke of starting a new religion?

St. Luke tells us in the Acts of the Apostles that they were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26), and even the most skeptical of secular scholars date that text to the end of the first century, so the term "Christian" would have most likely been in use during the work of the Apostles themselves in the 40s or 50s, the period that the text is writing about.  It was a term applied externally intending to be pejorative, but it was embraced by the Jewish Christ-believers themselves as an identifier.  We all know that the church in Antioch dealt with the Judaizing of the Greeks and the blowup between Peter and Paul surrounding it, and even those communities in Antioch which St. Peter (Simon Bar-Jonah the Jew) founded embraced the term.

It wasn't a new "religion", whatever exactly any of us mean by that term, it was a new covenant (contract). Christ sure did talk about one of those:

Quote
For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins - Matthew 26:28

As far as predictions about a new "religion", there are plenty of references to a new arrangement on the horizon:

Quote
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions... - Joel 2:28

Or the Lord's promise to Abraham:

Quote
...and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you - Genesis 12:3

The old covenant was originally exclusively for the Jews, but from the beginning God planned to reveal Himself to the entire world through a new one.

Quote
And he that sat upon the throne said: Behold, I make all things new. - Apocalypse 21:5

Don't forget that gospel itself means "good news", not "good olds."

Also, bear in mind that Christ did not come to cast away what came before, but to illuminate it and to fulfill it:

Quote
Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill - Matthew 5:17
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 06:14:32 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #72 on: November 26, 2009, 10:40:06 AM »

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

Yes, the video is interesting, especially the part about Messianic Jews' insistence on not being Christians.

Gee I wonder what they are then? The sure as sugar aren't Jews.

Why is it that Jews who believe in Jesus must no longer be considered Jewish? In the New Testament, which I know you reject, the apostles still identified themselves as Jews and spoke the same of Jews who had also come to the same faith:

"If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Galatians 2:14-16 NKJV).

"You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law ..." (Acts 21:20 NKJV).

When on trial, the apostle Paul let it be known that he was still a Pharisee: "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" (Acts 23:6 NKJV).

It's inconsistent to regard Jewish believers as no longer Jewish, but not do the same with Jews who have drifted into atheism, paganism, or some other non-monotheistic religion.
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #73 on: November 26, 2009, 11:10:52 AM »

St. Luke tells us in the Acts of the Apostles that they were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26), and even the most skeptical of secular scholars date that text to the end of the first century, so the term "Christian" would have most likely been in use during the work of the Apostles themselves in the 40s or 50s, the period that the text is writing about.  It was a term applied externally intending to be pejorative, but it was embraced by the Jewish Christ-believers themselves as an identifier.  We all know that the church in Antioch dealt with the Judaizing of the Greeks and the blowup between Peter and Paul surrounding it, and even those communities in Antioch which St. Peter (Simon Bar-Jonah the Jew) founded embraced the term.

It wasn't a new "religion", whatever exactly any of us mean by that term, it was a new covenant (contract). ...

Thanks for these thoughts, which I agree with wholeheartedly. My concern is with sharing our faith in such a way as doesn't give potential converts the wrong idea. Nowadays Christianity is considered a religion different from and newer than Judaism. For some Jewish people I've met, that alone is sufficient reason to reject Jesus as the Messiah predicted in the TaNaKH. They also cringe to hear anyone speak of being under grace instead of under the law.

To be sure, our Lord introduced a new covenant, and the bread and wine served signaled a change to a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, who had brought out bread and wine for blessing Abraham (Genesis 14:18). I agree that the OT foretold an influx of Gentiles to the true faith, but no OT passage expressly says the Messiah would introduce a new religion.


Also, bear in mind that Christ did not come to cast away what came before, but to illuminate it and to fulfill it:

Quote
Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill - Matthew 5:17

Yes, we should emphasize Christ's fulfillment of the law. As St. Paul wrote, "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31 NKJV).
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #74 on: November 26, 2009, 03:30:16 PM »

Shalom all

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

What a beautiful buffet!  A dash of Talmudic Judaism, a drop of 'Charismatic' Protestantism, and presto:  a new religion.

Before I answer your posts I first need to mention that I have not watched the above mentioned video and won't be doing so as I'm "bandwidth challenged". If you want me to commet on online Messianic sources I would prefer web/blog pages instead of streaming media.

If there were ever any astroturf, I believe Messianic Judaism would take the cake of being astroturf Christianity par excellence. It seems like they are trying to recreate the Church, but in Judaizer fashion.

As I've stated previously I can't answer for everyone who calls themselves a "Messianic Jew". Modern Nazarenes (like myself) differ from mainstream "Messianic Jews" in that we are much more traditional and liturgical. We are not trying to "recreate the Church" or "restore the original faith which was lost" because it wasn't lost. What we really want is to restore the original practices of The Faith - specifically the 1st century practices of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, that's all. Some of these practices have been retained in Orthodoxy while others were abandoned or altered.

I thought Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism?

Depends what you mean by "fulfillment". Christianity/Messianity/Nazarenism or whatever you call it (the Assyrian Church doesn't call it "Christianity" either btw) is the natural continuation of the original Faith of Abraham, Moses and the Prophets who all had Faith in the pre-Incarnate Messiah (the Arm & Word of YHWH). When something "moves into a new phase" so to speak, it means that changes will occur, but doesn't neccessarily mean that everything changes or that everything that was previously established is completely abolished:

{Hebrews 7:11-12} Therefore, if perfection is by way of the priesthood of Levi, by which the law was established for the people, why was it necessary that another priest should be raised up in the likeness of Melchisedec? Then he [would have] said, "He will be in the likeness of Aaron." But in the same way as a change took place in the priesthood, so a change also took place in the law.

Note the above passage says "a change" - singular. What was this change? Messiah's Crucifixion abolished the need Levitical Sacrificial system and therefore the need for the Levitical Priesthood, which in turn was permanently abolished when the Temple was destroyed in 70CE. But that does not neccessarily mean that the other ordaninces of the Torah have been abolished as not all the ordinances (like the dietry laws) are about atonement for sin. God moved into the "next phase" of His plan for mankind as He promised, however God's plan as a whole has not be completed yet - that will only happen when Messiah returns. We interpret "Messiah fulfilled the Law" to mean that He fulfilled that Sacrificial laws of the Torah, but that He fulfilled all the Law? Not yet, as He Himself said:

{Matthew 5:17-18} Do not think that I have come to break down the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to break [them] down, but to fulfill [them]. For assuredly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one stroke will pass from the law until everything happens.

If Messiah had fulfilled all of the Torah in 70CE there would be no point for Him to come a 2nd time now would there? While the Sacrificial laws of the Torah have been abolished by the Cross the rest of the Torah will only be abolished after the Final Judgement, cause if the Torah has been completley abolished then on what grounds will Messiah judge the unbelieving living and dead? Again this is why the Feasts of YHWH in particular are still so important to Nazarenes, we celebrate "what is to come" will just as much enthusiasm as we celebrate "what has come to pass". This is something most Protestants simply refuse to even try to understand, thankfully most Orthodox Christians I've met have been a lot more open minded regarding this.

Does Messianic Judaism have any connection to the Church that Christ our Lord started? It just looks like as Alveus Lacuna alluded to some Protestant Christianity with lots of Jewish interpolations.

Some of the practices done in mainstream Messianic Judaism were practiced in the 1st century Church but others weren't, that's all I can say on the matter.

My prayers are for these people that they will come to know the Orthodox Church as the continuity of Judaism, not this invention, however well-meaning it may be.

In Christ,
Andrew

Orthodoxy would need to reistate the original practices it abandoned and restore the ones it altered to their original forms in order to truely claim that it's the "continuity of Judaism" like it used to be.

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

Yes, the video is interesting, especially the part about Messianic Jews' insistence on not being Christians.

Reading the New Testament, I've noticed that the apostles neither identified themselves as Christians nor addressed other believers as Christians.

That has been my observation too, though they had no problem with the label per se...

{1 Peter 4:16} But if he suffers as a Christian, he should not be ashamed, but he should glorify God in this name.

...it wasn't what they called themselves, no:

{Acts 24:5} For we have found this man to be one who is corrupt and stirs up uproar among all the Judeans in all the land. For he is a leader of the doctrine of the Nazarenes

They called themselves Nazarenes and this is why:

{John 15:5-7} I am the vine and you [are] the branches. He who remains in me and I in him, this [one] will bring much fruit, because without me you are not able to do anything. Now except a man remains in me, he is thrown outside like a branch that has withered and they gather and place it in the fire that it may burn. But if you remain in me and my words remain in you, whatever you want to ask, you will have.

The Hebrew word netzar means "branch", so those who are in Messiah are Netzarim.

I've often wondered whether believers have hurt their witness to Jews by using the terms "Christian" and "Christianity."

Admittedly "Christian" and "Christianity" are terms with much negative baggage, while this shouldn't be so, the fact is it is so, much of Church history is indeed an embarresment. The Church has no one to blame but herself for her past wrongs against the Jews and other non-Christians, while the Church has done much good in this world she has also shed a lot of blood, fallen prey to prejudice, pride and corruption. Isn't it rather amazing that with outreach the Church has had the least success among the natural descendents of Abraham (both the sons of Isaac & Ishmael)?

Certain Fathers and Reformers are known for anti-Semitic statements - let's call it what is is ok - hate speech. Yes slander is a sin too (I'm sure that more than a few here know what the Greek word diavolos literally means!), and to be frank I see far too much slander against the Jews by Orthodox Christians. "But they've slandered the Church too" well that's their business with God, and they have a veil over their eyes, Christians should know better, so what's their excuse? Constructive criticism is justified, slandering is never justified under any circumstances.

For the Old Testament nowhere predicts that the Messiah would start a new religion.

Correct.

Where in the New Testament do we read that Jesus or his apostles spoke of starting a new religion?

Nowhere.

I've run into Jews who equate Jesus with the false prophet warned of in Deuteronomy 13:1-5. They acknowledge Jesus' miracles, but reject him for starting a new religion that they say leads people to depart from Torah and the true God.

I don't blame them for feeling this way but this is why I encourage them to discover Yeshua for themselves - the embodiment of true Christianity is Messiah Himself. Truth be told if it wasn't for Yeshua and Yeshua alone I would'nt be a Christian. Christians have let me down and will continue to let me down (and I'm not perfect either I let people down too sometimes) but Messiah will never let me down, and it's this Faith that gives me the strength to carry on loving and trusting my brethren in Messiah as flawed as they are and no matter how much I disagree with them at times. Because while we can't trust people (even Christians), we still have to. While the Church is indeed the most pathetic institution on the planet (and has been for most of her history, especially with her relationship to the Jews), I'll give her this much - she knows this and confesses this every Sunday and humbly continues to ask "Lord have mercy on us sinners".

Oh OK, now I understand.

Nazarene, does your congregation have any policy on accepting or rejecting Bible translations? What versions of Scripture are preferred or rejected where you worship?

For liturgical use during services we only use Hebrew & Aramaic texts and English translations of those texts. The Qasha (elder) will read the Bible in Hebrew or Aramaic then verbally interpret the verse into English line by line, like what is done in most Orthodox Jewish Synagogues. We have provided our own English translations of the prayers, hymns and Parshot (lections), so we don't use any of the commercial Bible translations during our liturgy. Our English translations read similar Dr. Everet Fox's translation of the Torah (The Five Books of Moses) because his translation is a very rythmic and rhetorical translation of the Hebrew which is perfect for liturgical use, this is why we've used it for inspiration. You have to see it to understand what I mean, but it's the closest you'll get in English for a real poetic feel of the Hebrew, though we haven't retained his excessive use of hyphenated phrases.

For lay study we have no objections to any English translation as long as it's not based on the Alexandrian texts (like the NIV) or translated by a one-man-band cultist (eg: Lamsa's translation).

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

Yes, the video is interesting, especially the part about Messianic Jews' insistence on not being Christians.

Gee I wonder what they are then? The sure as sugar aren't Jews.

Define what a "Jew" is.

Nazarene

What about the Eucharist ?

what do you believe about it ?

In Jesus and Mary

Altar Server

Eucharist means to "give thanks" and we are to give thanks to our Father everyday in whatever we do:

{Philippians 4:6} Do not be distressed about anything, but at all times, by prayer and by petition and with thanksgiving, your requests should be made known before God.

BUT how we give thanks depends on what we are thanking God for. Like Orthodox Christians we thank God for saving us from sin and death by sending His Son to die for us both weekly and annually in two special ceremonies. Our equivalent to the weekly Orthodox Eucharist in which we partake of the Body and Blood of Messiah is the Havdalah ceremony from which the weekly Orthodox Eucharist derives. Our annual ceremony is of course the Feast of Pesakh/Paskha which is more elaborate.

The Havdalah ceremony begins sometime after sunset on Saturday evening and can sometimes carry on into the early hours of Sunday morning:

{Acts 20:7} And on the first day of the week when we were assembled to break [the bread of] communion, Paul spoke with them, because the next day he was going to leave and he continued to speak until the middle of the night.

Our weekly Shabbat Siddur (liturgy) occurs on Saterday mornings so the Havdalah doesn't immediately follow. Only baptized members may partake of Holy Communion. We do not perform our Eucharistic meal in the same room in which we perform our "liturgy of the word", we do so in another room which has been consecrated for this purpose. Before we enter the room we perform ritual cleansing, remove our shoes and the women cover their heads. We stand around the table and the ceremony opens with the Shamasha (Deacon) leading the pre communion prayer. We then sit and the Qasha (Elder) blesses the bread loaf (unleavend) and the wine (must be homemade not store bought) by reciting the Eucharistic prayer (Anaphora). The Qasha then takes the bread loaf, tears off a piece and passes the loaf around and we all tear pieces off. Then the Qasha says "This is my body that is given for your sakes. This do for my remembrance," and we consume our pieces of the Body. The Qasha then pours the wine into a large cup and says "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do so, whenever you drink, for my rembrance", then he takes a sip, passes the cup around and we all take sips of the Blood. We stand and close with the Shamasha leading the post communion prayer and exit the room.

After communion we usually make our way to the fellowship hall for snacks and refreshments, on some nights we'll have dinner as a congregation, and activities for the kids, prayer meetings and Bible study classes, depending on how many people come to the service.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2009, 04:54:16 PM »

Shalom all

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

What a beautiful buffet!  A dash of Talmudic Judaism, a drop of 'Charismatic' Protestantism, and presto:  a new religion.

Before I answer your posts I first need to mention that I have not watched the above mentioned video and won't be doing so as I'm "bandwidth challenged". If you want me to commet on online Messianic sources I would prefer web/blog pages instead of streaming media.

Nazarene, thanks for your lengthy reply. Since you can't view the video, which concerned Messianic Jews in Israel, I should tell you that the Israeli announcer insulted our Lord and us believers by calling our Messiah "Yeshu." People at this forum may not realize it, but the acronym YESHU is a curse:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/yeshu

I hope you and all the other posters are having a Happy Thanksgiving.
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2009, 05:04:07 PM »

I am too ignorant to comment properly on that video, but is it not possible that someone made a mistake and put 'Yeshu' when they meant 'yeshua'? I don't quite understand.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2009, 05:13:56 PM »

I am too ignorant to comment properly on that video, but is it not possible that someone made a mistake and put 'Yeshu' when they meant 'yeshua'? I don't quite understand.

Please don't feel ignorant. We're all learning. The announcer was not ignorant. He opened by identifying our Messiah as "Yeshu," then said the Messianic Jews call Him "Yeshua."

By the way, the correct response to this curse is to use the name "Yeshua" so that it will be evident that our Messiah's name is not going to be blotted out from memory.
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2009, 06:50:27 PM »

Shalom all

This is an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEBAldf4L0

What a beautiful buffet!  A dash of Talmudic Judaism, a drop of 'Charismatic' Protestantism, and presto:  a new religion.

Before I answer your posts I first need to mention that I have not watched the above mentioned video and won't be doing so as I'm "bandwidth challenged". If you want me to commet on online Messianic sources I would prefer web/blog pages instead of streaming media.

Nazarene, thanks for your lengthy reply. Since you can't view the video, which concerned Messianic Jews in Israel, I should tell you that the Israeli announcer insulted our Lord and us believers by calling our Messiah "Yeshu." People at this forum may not realize it, but the acronym YESHU is a curse:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/yeshu

I hope you and all the other posters are having a Happy Thanksgiving.

I'm seeing red Angry but as our dear Master says: "pray for those who persecute you", so may YHWH have mercy on him.

Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #79 on: November 27, 2009, 10:44:04 AM »

Nazarene,  I am wondering which Nazarene group you belong to that are your headquarters or leadership?  From my understanding there are several groups that call themselves Nazarene in the messianic community.  Please note that I am not looking for your parish location, just the Nazarene group.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 11:13:20 AM by Mivac » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #80 on: November 27, 2009, 03:23:03 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by group. Are you referring to an estblished organization like the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America? We're not associated with any of these groups and have no headquarters, we are just (at the moment) a small network of Nazarene synagogues & individuals around the world with no presence on the web in the form of an official website or blog. (BTW my congregation is not based in the US or Israel). I wish I could point you to some informative online source which best represents our beliefs and practices and so far all I've managed to find is this one: http://www.natzraya.org/, it needs updating but so far from what I've read this is group is the closest to match mine.
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #81 on: November 27, 2009, 03:29:51 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by group. Are you referring to an estblished organization like the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America? We're not associated with any of these groups and have no headquarters, we are just (at the moment) a small network of Nazarene synagogues & individuals around the world with no presence on the web in the form of an official website or blog. (BTW my congregation is not based in the US or Israel). I wish I could point you to some informative online source which best represents our beliefs and practices and so far all I've managed to find is this one: http://www.natzraya.org/, it needs updating but so far from what I've read this is group is the closest to match mine.

Thank you.  I was just wondering how mainstream you were or if you were a start  up group of some sorts to get a better handle of your faith. 
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #82 on: November 27, 2009, 04:46:08 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by group. Are you referring to an estblished organization like the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America? We're not associated with any of these groups and have no headquarters, we are just (at the moment) a small network of Nazarene synagogues & individuals around the world with no presence on the web in the form of an official website or blog. (BTW my congregation is not based in the US or Israel). I wish I could point you to some informative online source which best represents our beliefs and practices and so far all I've managed to find is this one: http://www.natzraya.org/, it needs updating but so far from what I've read this is group is the closest to match mine.

Thank you.  I was just wondering how mainstream you were or if you were a start  up group of some sorts to get a better handle of your faith. 

You're welcome. Were not very mainstream and we try to avoid it as much as we can because many mainstream Messianics are starting to embrace heresies like polygamy and Arianism. We do want to eventually form a Beit Din (Episcopate), but right now it's more important for us to form a common liturgy and witness to the Jews. The Apostles started slowly too, with one thing at a time. While Messianics in general are doing the right thing (going back to their "Hebrew roots") they are doing it the wrong way. Just like they don't agree with everything in gentile Christianity, neither do we, but are willing to approach the Orthodox Church for assistance in discovering our ancient customs.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #83 on: November 27, 2009, 04:51:57 PM »

While Messianics in general are doing the right thing (going back to their "Hebrew roots") they are doing it the wrong way. Just like they don't agree with everything in gentile Christianity, neither do we, but are willing to approach the Orthodox Church for assistance in discovering our ancient customs.

Couldn't you also say that you're robbing Her of the treasures which She alone has preserved?
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #84 on: November 27, 2009, 05:46:30 PM »

While Messianics in general are doing the right thing (going back to their "Hebrew roots") they are doing it the wrong way. Just like they don't agree with everything in gentile Christianity, neither do we, but are willing to approach the Orthodox Church for assistance in discovering our ancient customs.

Couldn't you also say that you're robbing Her of the treasures which She alone has preserved?

Couldn't you say that your Greco-Roman pagan (physical) ancestors robbed these treasures from us (your spiritual ancestors) and mass murdered us by the thousands, and therefore you didn't directly receive them from us but from them?

Couldn't you say the while you have preserved many of these treasures, you haven't preserved them all because you thought it some were "Judaizing junk", and ones you have preserved include ones that are not in their original form?

Couldn't you say that the fact that most Nazarenes of the Roman empire fled to the east not west, cause at least there we wouldn't be killed not only for our faith but for our ethnicity too, and because the church there was still predominently Jewish and less tollerant of "fresh out paganism Antisemitic amatures" at the time, that therefore the Assyrian Church of the East has preserved more of these treasure (unaltered) than you have?

Couldn't you say that the earth is and all that is within belongs to God, and the right to live for God through the example of His son belongs to all?

Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #85 on: November 27, 2009, 07:14:51 PM »

While Messianics in general are doing the right thing (going back to their "Hebrew roots") they are doing it the wrong way. Just like they don't agree with everything in gentile Christianity, neither do we, but are willing to approach the Orthodox Church for assistance in discovering our ancient customs.

Couldn't you also say that you're robbing Her of the treasures which She alone has preserved?

Couldn't you say that your Greco-Roman pagan (physical) ancestors robbed these treasures from us (your spiritual ancestors) and mass murdered us by the thousands, and therefore you didn't directly receive them from us but from them?

a) To say that you'd have to ignore the Biblical testimony--you know, where St. Peter (and company), at the direct command of the Most High, offer the Gospel to the Gentiles. Can't have stolen what was freely offered.
b) Your group has been around less than a century. The only connection you have to the first-century Jews who founded the Church is conceptual ("we want to be like them"). If you wish to engage in your historical restorationist project that's your business. But to claim some sort of ancestry for your modern group to the two-thousand year old Orthodox Church which can be objectively traced, both physically and historically (even if you reject the doctrinal and sacramental linkage), to that original gathering at Pentecost just makes you sound like an idiot.
(c) a bit to the side, but why are you assuming that someone who posts here has physical 'Greco-Roman' ancestors?)

Quote
Couldn't you say the while you have preserved many of these treasures, you haven't preserved them all because you thought it some were "Judaizing junk", and ones you have preserved include ones that are not in their original form?

Couldn't you say that the fact that most Nazarenes of the Roman empire fled to the east not west, cause at least there we wouldn't be killed not only for our faith but for our ethnicity too, and because the church there was still predominently Jewish and less tollerant of "fresh out paganism Antisemitic amatures" at the time, that therefore the Assyrian Church of the East has preserved more of these treasure (unaltered) than you have?

Ahistorical. Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the ahistorical nature of your entire project.
The major migration of the Jews occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It's pretty obvious why a significant number (majority?) would choose to head out of the Roman Empire to rejoin the Jewish communities of Babylon and Persia which had been there since the Babylonian captivity--but it had nothing to do with moving away from non-Jewish Christians (who were as subject to Roman persecution as Jews at that time) or the 'Jewish nature of the church there'--since in 70 AD, they were bringing the Church with them, not the other way around.
The Church of the East didn't separate from the rest of the Church until 400 years laters, after the Council of Ephesus. At which point the 'non-Jewish' churches they were separate from (like Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc) had all been Christian for three-and-a-half- centuries. If you recognize the extension of the gospel to gentiles at all, calling those Churches 'fresh out of paganism' at that point is nearly as ridiculous as your claim to 'spiritual ancestry' to Churches founded by the Apostles.
And by the way, the split with the Church of the East is fairly well documented--and I would imagine you would have a very hard time finding any contemporary Churchman who thought the issue was how "Jewish" the Church of the East was or the rest of the Church was not.


Quote
Couldn't you say that the earth is and all that is within belongs to God, and the right to live for God through the example of His son belongs to all?

Where did Alveus question your right 'to live for God'. What he questioned was your stated intention/desire to cherry-pick from the Apostolic Tradition preserved in our Church.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #86 on: November 27, 2009, 07:28:42 PM »

While Messianics in general are doing the right thing (going back to their "Hebrew roots") they are doing it the wrong way. Just like they don't agree with everything in gentile Christianity, neither do we, but are willing to approach the Orthodox Church for assistance in discovering our ancient customs.

Couldn't you also say that you're robbing Her of the treasures which She alone has preserved?

How can such treasures be robbed? You surely refer to intangible things - surely, the only way to 'take' these would be to become Orthodox? Or do you in fact believe that many people may 'carry away' the same historical understanding and beliefs that Orthodox holds, whilst not being Orthodox themselves?

I don't understand how what Nazarene describes could diminish you. From your point of view, isn't the re-discovery of your ancient customs by someone so far removed from your faith, rather like someone going to a well and carrying away an empty pitcher under the impression that it contains water?

(Nazarene, I'm not intending to comment on your faith, only wondering how Alveus comes to his position)
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2009, 09:29:03 PM »

Couldn't you say that your Greco-Roman pagan (physical) ancestors robbed these treasures from us (your spiritual ancestors) and mass murdered us by the thousands, and therefore you didn't directly receive them from us but from them?


Not my "Spiritual Ancestor".. Not every Orthodox Christian is a Gentile

I think you begin from a healthy motivation, to be like the Original Church. In the past, other groups with the same motivation learned that the Original Ancient Church still exists. Once you are faced with that fact, there is no need for a separate group of any kind.

In Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #88 on: November 28, 2009, 07:45:12 PM »

a) To say that you'd have to ignore the Biblical testimony--you know, where St. Peter (and company), at the direct command of the Most High, offer the Gospel to the Gentiles. Can't have stolen what was freely offered.

I don't know how you got the impression that I'm denying that the Gospel was meant to go to the gentiles. That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

{Matthew 10:5-6} Yeshua sent these twelve and commanded them and said, "Do not go on the road of the heathens and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans. But go rather to the sheep that are lost from the house of Israel.

{Romans 1:16} For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the gentiles.

That is the blueprint for sharing the Gospel which the Apostles followed both at Pentecost (there were no pagans at that event just Jews and converts to Judaism, from all over the world not just the Roman empire) and when they went on missions to the Roman and Persian empires (their first stop was always the Jewish synagogues, unless there were no Jewish synagogues in the location).

Everyone has the right to be given the opportunity to choose eternal life, including the Jews. But the Jews are the first point of call, that is how the Most High said it's to be done. He said go into the world and make disciples of all men of all nations, he did not say sit and wait for them to come to you. How much active outreach has the Orthodox Church done amongst the Jews throughout it's history? How much is it doing now? When I read your history, I see very little of this. Instead I see many of your saints engaging in theological debate with Jews, not for the purpose of helping them to "see the light" but solely to bash them by telling them that they're "lost Judaizing scum who are hated by God", thereby cultivate hatred in their hearts. I see many of your saints forbidding Christians from having any contact with Jews - and so countless opportunities have gone wasted, and therefore countless souls have gone lost as a result. And don't get me started with the continous slander against the Jews which is still found among many Orthodox Christians today, again I refer to the literal English translation of the Greek word diavolos - so if one slanders who are they immitating? Gentile Christianity has made the biggest contribution in pushing the Jews further and further away from God - that is the truth.

Let me tell you why Nazarenes believe that the Most High said the Gospel is to go to the Jews first:

The Gospel is especially significant for Jews because YHWH divorced His wife Israel for "playing the harlot". Because He divorced her she cannot remarry Him, she commits adultery if she does. But YHWH loves His wife and He wanted to take her back, in fact He promised to take her back. But how could He do this without violating His own commandments? There was only one way, a divorced woman cannot remarry without committing adultery, unless her husband had died. Did Israel's husband die? Yes He did, and because of this she is now free to remarry Him if she so chooses. The Rabbis argue that Gospel violates the Torah, but the truth is the Gospel is the only way through which the Jews can become "YHWH's people" again, the only way they (as broken branches) can be regraphted into the Olive Tree. For the gentiles the Gospel is good news, but for the Jews it's excellent news - love the Jews and tell them that their loving husband has fulfilled His promise to them, it's not too late. "Shout it from the rooftops", where they take it from there is up to them. Paul understood this, this is what Paul meant when he said:

{Romans 3:31}  Therefore, do we make the Torah of none effect by faith [in the Gospel]? Let it not be so! Rather, we establish the Torah [by sharing the Gospel].

Don't keep making the same mistakes too many of your fathers made, don't slander the Jews or disrespect their traditions, don't get into useless theological debates with them. Rather go to them by doing what Paul did here:

{1 Corinthians 2:1-2} And my brothers, when I came to you, I declared to you the mystery of God, not with excellent speech nor with wisdom.  And I did not judge myself among you as though I knew anything, except Yeshua Meshikha and him crucified.

b) Your group has been around less than a century. The only connection you have to the first-century Jews who founded the Church is conceptual ("we want to be like them"). If you wish to engage in your historical restorationist project that's your business.

I'm not the one who started this thread of interogation, I'm just answering your questions. I don't mind this but it's starting to distract me from the purpose I joined this forum - to research the Hebrew roots of ancient Christian worship. But this hasn't discouraged me enough to abandon my mission and leave the forum. This thread was inactive for weeks before the discussion was resumed, and that's what I've been doing for the rest of time and what my main focuss is.

But to claim some sort of ancestry for your modern group to the two-thousand year old Orthodox Church which can be objectively traced, both physically and historically (even if you reject the doctrinal and sacramental linkage), to that original gathering at Pentecost just makes you sound like an idiot.

Who say's I'm rejecting the Orthodox Church's historical, doctrinal and sacramental linkage to the original gathering at Pentecost? Of course the first members of the Greco-Roman Christian communities were Jews who were at that gathering. Same goes for the first members of the Egyptian, Ethiopian, Armenian, Palestinian, Persian, and Indian Christian communities. But is that to say that you have preserved all the Apostolic Traditions EXACTLY as you received them? Your history proves you haven't, you've made changes in the form of additions, subtractions and alterations. And these changes started happening when the power of the Greco-Roman church started shifting from the Jews to the gentiles.

(c) a bit to the side, but why are you assuming that someone who posts here has physical 'Greco-Roman' ancestors?)

"Greco-Roman" is a popular secular term for the Roman empire before it split, because it was legally Roman and culturally Greek. The Orthodox Church being the Church of Constantinople, the Byzantine rite, is the Greco-Roman Church. My use of "Greco-Roman" is geographical (the regions controlled by the Romans), I am not referring to ethnicity, I'm well aware that the Greco-Roman world, and later the Byzantine empire were ethnically mixed. BTW I'm half Greek, so I also have Greco-Roman pagan ancestors.

Quote
Couldn't you say the while you have preserved many of these treasures, you haven't preserved them all because you thought it some were "Judaizing junk", and ones you have preserved include ones that are not in their original form?

Couldn't you say that the fact that most Nazarenes of the Roman empire fled to the east not west, cause at least there we wouldn't be killed not only for our faith but for our ethnicity too, and because the church there was still predominently Jewish and less tollerant of "fresh out paganism Antisemitic amatures" at the time, that therefore the Assyrian Church of the East has preserved more of these treasure (unaltered) than you have?

Ahistorical. Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the ahistorical nature of your entire project.
The major migration of the Jews occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It's pretty obvious why a significant number (majority?) would choose to head out of the Roman Empire to rejoin the Jewish communities of Babylon and Persia which had been there since the Babylonian captivity--but it had nothing to do with moving away from non-Jewish Christians (who were as subject to Roman persecution as Jews at that time) or the 'Jewish nature of the church there'--since in 70 AD, they were bringing the Church with them, not the other way around.

I'm not talking about the Jews but about the Nazarenes - I said the majority of Nazarenes went east rather than west - and this is proven by the fact that the only church outside of Israel that was ever known as Nazarenes is the Church of the East, look it up. Not all Nazarenes were of Jewish descent (ethnically) many were gentile proselytes to Judaism before the embraced Messiah, and many gentile Christians (converts from paganism) also went eastwords to escape persecution. Yes we preferred to go to Persia, not only to escape persecution and Antisemtism, but also because our gentile brethren in the Greco-Roman world were giving us less and less support and compromising more and more with the pagans for the sake of survival, eventually to the extent where the Antisemitism of the pagans rubbed off onto the Greco-Roman gentile churches. The Persian church wouldn't experience persecution for another 300 years so, and up to that point it was still predominetly Jewish because the majority of converts there for the first 300 years were converts from Judaism, the Gospel didn't appeal much to the Zoroastrians.

Compromise with paganism was a major issue in the churches of the Greco-Roman world almost from day one, to the extent where the Apostles themselves had to address it numerous times (eg: 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Revelation 2-3), and after the death of the last Apostle the problem just got bigger. In 230CE Tertullian wrote:

"By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia are now frequented, with gifts being carried to and fro."

According to Tertullian gentile Christians had become "strangers" to the Jewish traditions of the Apostles by his time, and "now" took part in the pagan Greco-Roman festivals. The only way this could've happened is with compromise, or are you going to tell me that Messiah and the Apostles observed these feasts and were "strangers" to the Feasts of YHWH? This is what I meant about the Orthodox Church "abandoning" some Apostolic Traditions and "adding" traditions which are not Apostolic in origin.

The Church of the East didn't separate from the rest of the Church until 400 years laters, after the Council of Ephesus. At which point the 'non-Jewish' churches they were separate from (like Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc) had all been Christian for three-and-a-half- centuries. If you recognize the extension of the gospel to gentiles at all, calling those Churches 'fresh out of paganism' at that point is nearly as ridiculous as your claim to 'spiritual ancestry' to Churches founded by the Apostles.

And by the way, the split with the Church of the East is fairly well documented--and I would imagine you would have a very hard time finding any contemporary Churchman who thought the issue was how "Jewish" the Church of the East was or the rest of the Church was not.

If I want to know the history and teachings of the Church of the East I will ask them about it because it's their history and their teachings and they will always know it better than any outsider who studies it can ever hope to. Likewise if I want to know the history and teachings of the Ethiopian church, I'll ask the Ethiopians, and so on and so on. You would end up with a very distorted view about the RCC if you confine yourself exclusively to the writings of their rivals like the Protestants. You cannot be objective if you refuse to break out of your own little universe, and we are all guilty of forming our own little universes, aren't we? You have to interpret the writings of other churches from their perspective not your own, because it's their writings not yours, otherwise you will forever remain biased and a biased scholar is not a good scholar.

This "fairly well documented" split as it is explained by the west, is utterly rejected by the COE. The COE is persistant that they never split from the western Church, as they were never under the subjection of the western Church to begin with. They may have formally declared their independence at the Synod of Markataba, but this declaration was nothing more than an affirmation of the independence they have always enjoyed. It's their history, their story to tell, so let them tell it:

Quote from: Paul Younan
Shlama Akhan Abudar,

I'm assuming you're referring to this quote:

Quote
Commonly referred to as the Church of the East, this community at first remained in communion with the churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Yet, it grew under the watchful eyes of the Sassanid Persians — followers of the prophet Zoroaster — who suspected the church of harboring loyalties to Byzantium.

Yes, we very frequently encounter it. Unfortunately if what is implied by "remained in communion" with the other Churches meant any sort of jurisdictional/ecclesiastical authority...then of course that is simply a fabrication of history. It's hard for the West to imagine that a completely independent (jurisdictional speaking) branch of the Church existed from the Apostolic days. It does not fit in well with how they have written the history of Christianity.

However if what is meant by "remained in communion" is that we considered every other Christian a part of the One Church, then absolutely yes. That remains the case even till today where any baptized Christian, no matter who, is welcomed at the communion meal as part of the CoE himself/herself.

All depends on what they mean by "communion."[/url]

Quote
Couldn't you say that the earth is and all that is within belongs to God, and the right to live for God through the example of His son belongs to all?

Where did Alveus question your right 'to live for God'. What he questioned was your stated intention/desire to cherry-pick from the Apostolic Tradition preserved in our Church.

I don't know about "cherry-picking" Apostolic Tradition but I do know the following, which even your clergy and scholars admit to:

1) not all your traditions are Apostolic in origin
2) you have not kept all the Traditions of the Apostles, you have abandoned some of them
3) not all the Apostolic Traditions which you have kept are in their original forms, you altered some of them

I have no interest in why you've added other traditions, dropped certain traditions or altered some traditions, but the fact is you did. I and other Nazarenes are only interested in the following:

1) only including Traditions of Apostolic origin preserved by the EO, OOs, RCC & COE into our liturgical rite
2) reinstating the Traditions of Apostolic origin which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE have abandoned
3) restoring the Apostolic Traditions which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE has altered to their original forms, or failing that, their most ancient forms.

That's all.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 07:48:42 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #89 on: November 28, 2009, 08:10:54 PM »

(Nazarene, I'm not intending to comment on your faith, only wondering how Alveus comes to his position)

No worries. Since it's Alvenus position only he/she can answer how he/she came to this position.

Couldn't you say that your Greco-Roman pagan (physical) ancestors robbed these treasures from us (your spiritual ancestors) and mass murdered us by the thousands, and therefore you didn't directly receive them from us but from them?


Not my "Spiritual Ancestor".. Not every Orthodox Christian is a Gentile

I think you begin from a healthy motivation, to be like the Original Church. In the past, other groups with the same motivation learned that the Original Ancient Church still exists. Once you are faced with that fact, there is no need for a separate group of any kind.

In Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek.

Well our intention is not to form a separate group but a distinct group, i.e that Nazarenes are "separate" from the EOs the way the OOs are "separate" from EOs. All I've been talking about this whole time is a liturgical rite, one that is specifically designed to serve all the needs of Jewish converts, not only because we are very active in Jewish outreach but also because as a whole more Jews are embracing the Gospel now than in the past 1700 years or so. I'm afraid liturgically speaking the EO, OOs and even the COE all fall short, the COE comes the closest. There are plenty of Jews who have converted to EO, but there are plenty more who won't because they want Hebrew and Aramaic, they want to hear the Torah and Prophets read every Shabbat, they want to celebrate the Feasts of YHWH, i.e. they want do worship EXACTLY as the ancient Nazarenes worshipped - they don't want the changes that the EO has made. Someday we would eventually like to have the Episcopate of the circumcision reinstated, but it's unlikely that it will happen before Messiah returns, but that's fine because the liturgy is more important.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 08:13:02 PM by Nazarene » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #90 on: November 28, 2009, 09:06:13 PM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #91 on: November 28, 2009, 10:08:58 PM »

I have no interest in why you've added other traditions, dropped certain traditions or altered some traditions, but the fact is you did. I and other Nazarenes are only interested in the following:

1) only including Traditions of Apostolic origin preserved by the EO, OOs, RCC & COE into our liturgical rite
2) reinstating the Traditions of Apostolic origin which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE have abandoned
3) restoring the Apostolic Traditions which the EO, OOs, RCC & COE has altered to their original forms, or failing that, their most ancient forms.

That's all.

This is crafting the faith in your own image, period.  It's you and your friends in whatever kind of lose network you've established online mining the ancient churches for what you want you take from them.  There is no way to effectively reconstruct the past, period.  You cannot recapture it.  And even if you could, I doubt it would be much more appealing to the Jews than any other form of Christianity.

Creating a religion from the ground up is very exciting, however it's still not something from the "top down", but rather from the "ground up."  It's fashioned according to your own tastes and whims; it's certainly not delivered. 

Why do you even want to be the one who gets to arbitrate what is and is not of Apostolic origin?  It's a failure from the outset!
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #92 on: November 28, 2009, 11:24:12 PM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.

With the sabbath over, we can all roll up our sleeves and get back to work.  Wink

I agree that the gospel went to the Jews first. Wouldn't you agree, however, that there's always a new generation of Jews to reach just as there's always a new generation of yet-to-be reached Gentiles? Indeed, there's always more work to do on the Great Commission. Right?

The apostle Paul willingly adapted to the culture of whatever people he was witnessing to:

"... Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New King James Version).

Isn't the salvation of all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, sufficient reason to adapt an order of worship to appeal to them?

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

Having lurked at this site and others promoting Eastern Orthodoxy, I've been troubled to see squabbles over questions such as which calendar to follow and whether to have pews. Would it be a big deal to let people follow a lunar liturgical calendar if they consider it proper?

Have you considered Romans 14 lately? The Orthodox Study Bible includes this comment regarding the apostle Paul's instructions on respecting one another's scruples:

"In Orthodox Christianity, there are things that cannot be compromised, and there are areas of flexibility. God is gracious and allows diversity in doubtful things (v. 1), matters not related to essential doctrines and moral teachings. The weak in the faith are people who assign primary importance to secondary matters. The two examples of flexible areas given here involve food restrictions (v. 2) and the observance of liturgical calendars (v. 5), things which the weak might try to use to judge others or to divide the Church. In both cases, we are commanded to give flexibility to others just as God Himself does (v. 3)."

Clearly, the primitive assemblies were to be flexible, and insistence on Sunday worship along with use of a Julian calendar could be a sign of weak faith. Right?

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #93 on: November 29, 2009, 02:45:18 AM »

You are conflating two conversations-
One possible conversation is what the Orthodox Church can or should do to improve its outreach to various groups. That's an important conversation, and one that should occur even more than it does (although it does occur). However, that's an internal conversation. Those who have not joined themselves to the Bride of Christ, who have not submitted themselves to the authority of the Apostolic tradition, are not in a position to debate what is proper to that Tradition and what is not, to determine what contributes to theosis and what detracts from it, what they actually need vs what they want.

The other conversation is what groups who are not part of the Apostolic Church can do to make more converts, to make themselves more appealing to certain target groups. Like the first one, that's an internal conversation. Since you do not accept the authority of the Apostolic Tradition, you are free to do whatever you want, and Orthodox input is a simple, "You should accept the Tradition. As long as you are picking and choosing as you will, you will never understand it."


insistence on Sunday worship

This is a perfect example. It was the Jewish Apostles, those who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry, who beheld His Resurrection, and who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who established 'the Lord's Day', the day of His Resurrection following His Sabbath in the tomb, Sunday as the pre-eminent day of worship for those who would follow the risen Christ. By rejecting it, you are not 're-establishing' the Jewish Church--you are rejecting the Jewish Church Christ actually established in favor of some artificial construct you think makes more sense. Sorry, I'll stick with St. Peter.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #94 on: November 29, 2009, 11:11:05 AM »

That said at the same time you can't deny the Biblical testimony that the Gospel is meant to go to the Jews first:

Sigh. I don't deny that the Gospel was meant to go to the Jews first. But the elephant in the room that you are ignoring is that this already happened. Two thousand years ago, the Gospel was first proclaimed in Jerusalem and a community of Jewish followers of the Messiah was formed under the leadership of the Twelve and St. James the Brother of God. That community then sent out missionaries throughout the world who went first to the local synagogues and then to the surrounding Gentiles. The apostles organized those who believed, both Jewish and Gentile, into local communities and appointed men, both Jewish and Gentile, to continue shepherding the communities once they were gone. The apostles and their successors established a single Church which has endured down to the present.

You want to ignore this historical fact and create a 'Jewish Church' that looks like you think it should--while ignoring the Church that those original Jewish Christians actually established.

I beg your pardon, are you telling me that the Faithful need no longer share the Gospel with Jews?

{2 Peter 3:9} Mar YAH does not delay in his promises as men consider delay, but he is long-suffering because of you, in that he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but rather [that] everyone should come to repentance.

"Everyone" includes the Jews, yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as Messiah is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nobody but God Himself has the right to declare that a certain group is no longer elligable to be given the chance to choose eternal life, you cannot say that "now the Gospel is meant for the gentiles only". Sorry but this attitude of "the Gospel already went to the Jews first, the first few generations rejected it so now we don't have to share it with them anymore", is not from the Spirit of God - it's Antisemtism pure and simple. YHWH says "I change not" (Malachi 3:6). Messiah did not establish an Antisemtic Church or a racist Church of any kind, this "elitist club mentally" is the same mentality of the Pharisees which Messiah Himself condemned:

{Matthew 23:14} Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! Because you have held the kingdom of heaven closed before men. For you are not entering and those who would enter, you do not allow to enter.

You cannot "cherry pick" who to share the Gospel with, either you share it with EVERYONE (including the Jews) or no one. Refusing to share the gift of eternal life with everyone (including the Jews) means you're not doing the job (the only job) Messiah gave you to do the way He told you to do it. It's not enough to just do "what God says", you must do it the way He told you to do it, partial obedience is not obedience.

Considering what you said above, I suppose I've found another tradition that you hold which is not Apostolic in orign and therefore this verse applies to you:

{Matthew 15:6} And you nullify the word of God because of your tradition.

"By their fruits you shall know them" the Master says. The fruits of this attitude are obvious for those who have studied the history of the Greco-Roman church - Antisemitism, murder, slander, theft and hatred, which continues today. Nazarenes want no part in a church that hates, that's what Islam is for, and I can assure you neither does the Most High who emphatically states that hatred stems from the evil one and not from Him. God is (unconditional) love not hate.

While all gentiles are free to partake of and benefit from the promise made to Israel, that promise was made to Israel and no one else. You are "wild branches" grafted into the original "Olive Tree" but you will always be "wild branches", you will never be the orignal. That does not mean that because you are "wild brances" that you are lower in value or can't enjoy the full benefits of the promise. But it also does not mean that you can claim the promise as your own or horde it from the people to whom the promise was originally made. God's promises stand for all eternity because He is eternal, if His promises are not eternal then He is not God but a fake, and if that's the case then there's no point in putting faith in any of His promises and consequently in worshipping Him:

{Romans 11:17-21} And if some branches were broken off and you who are a wild olive [branch] were grafted into their places and became a sharer of the root and of the fatness of the olive [tree], do not pride yourself about the branches. Now if you pride yourself, you are not bearing the root, but the root bears you. And it may be [that] you should say of the branches that were broken off, "I will be grafted in their places." These [things] are good. They were broken off because they did not believe, but you stand by faith. Do not be elevated in your mind, but have reverence, for if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will also not spare you.

This is crafting the faith in your own image, period.

And I suppose adding traditions that you didn't receive from the Apostles, dropping a few that you did and altering a few others isn't? Yeah right.

It's you and your friends in whatever kind of lose network you've established online mining the ancient churches for what you want you take from them.

There's that "elite club mentality" again. Honestly if you read the NT, you'll notice that Messiah introduced no new tradtions, and the Apostles introduced very few. The bulk of Apostolic Tradition consists of the ordinances in the Torah which God gave to Moses, all Messiah and Apostles really did was reveal the "mysteries" of those ordinances (i.e that they point to Messiah), and adapt them slightly to emphasize this, as well as discard the unacceptable traditions introduced by the Pharisees. So no we're not stealing anything, just reistating the ordinances received by our own ancestors at Mount Sinai in the form they were practiced in by the 1st century Nazarene community in Jerusalem. We have no interest in Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Babylon or India. The Torah of Messiah goes forth from Zion.

There is no way to effectively reconstruct the past, period.  You cannot recapture it.  And even if you could, I doubt it would be much more appealing to the Jews than any other form of Christianity.

The purpose of reconstructing the ancient rite of Jerusalem is not for making it more appealing to potential Jewish converts, but for serving the liturgical needs of Jews who have already embraced Messiah, and any who will do so in future. There is no gentile form of Christianity that can serve all their needs - sorry.

Creating a religion from the ground up is very exciting, however it's still not something from the "top down", but rather from the "ground up."  It's fashioned according to your own tastes and whims; it's certainly not delivered.

I don't know anything about creating a "new religion" or how you get this impression. Yeshua of Nazareth is "the way the truth and the life", the Son of God, God in the flesh, and the promised Messiah of Irael, we believe that and accept it as truth through faith. We preach nothing but "Messiah and Him crucified" to everyone we witnesses to, we worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - YHWH Elohim. We obey the 10 Commandments, observe the Sabbath, celebrate the Feasts of YHWH, practice circumcision, perform Mikveh (baptism) in the name of YHWH, recite the Shema x2 day, recite the Lord's Prayer x3 a day, keep Kosher, read the Torah and Prophets at every Shabbat service, partake of the Body and Blood on the 1st day of the week, every week. All of these practices were done in the early Church, the evidence fills the pages of NT. "New religion"? Hardley.

Why do you even want to be the one who gets to arbitrate what is and is not of Apostolic origin?  It's a failure from the outset!

I don't need to arbitrate what is of Apostolic origin and what isn't, many of the Fathers and early
Christian historians have clearly spelled it out for me, the quote from Tertullian is one example out of many. So I'm using their writings as a guide to "separate the wheat from the chaff". I've never come across any statement from any Father that says "we have kept all the traditions handed to us from the Apostles exactly the way we received them, without any change or revision, and without any addition or subtraction." Not only is there no such statement there is no evidence to validate such a claim, even if it had ever been made. We want the Tradition, but we don't want the changes that were made to it. If the Tradition as it was before the changes occured was good enough for chosen emmisionaries of Messiah, then it's good enough for us. If it ain't broke why fix it, as the saying goes.

With the sabbath over, we can all roll up our sleeves and get back to work.  Wink

I agree that the gospel went to the Jews first. Wouldn't you agree, however, that there's always a new generation of Jews to reach just as there's always a new generation of yet-to-be reached Gentiles? Indeed, there's always more work to do on the Great Commission. Right?

Exactly if you want to be a missionary you can't "cherry pick" who you witnesses to. Even Peter was rebuked for having this attitude (Acts 10).

The apostle Paul willingly adapted to the culture of whatever people he was witnessing to:

"... Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New King James Version).

Exactly but sadly the attitude amongst most Orthodox Christians seems to be that they have respect for their own traditions but no respect for anyone else's. It's such a shame, but they are the only ones that can rectify this problem, and step one is to acknowledge that it is a problem. Fortunately this is not the case with all Orthodox Christians.

Isn't the salvation of all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, sufficient reason to adapt an order of worship to appeal to them?

I don't see EOs giving OOs or RCs so much flack, despite the fact that there are differences between their liturgical rites (eg: the use of leavend verses unleavend bread in the Eucharist). Though as I told Alvenus Lacuna above, our purpose is not to create something that appeals to potential Jewish converts, but resurrect the ancient Nazarene practices in order to serve the needs of Jewish converts. And yes salvation is for all men, always was and always will be. Anything else is a "different gospel" which comes from the evil one and has resulted in horrible ideologies like the Third Riech and the Klu Klux Klan.

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

Yip as I said there are needs that are not being met. This is very discouraging for many Jewish seekers, because sadly few gentile Christians understand the needs of Jewish converts, and worse many simply refuse to.

Having lurked at this site and others promoting Eastern Orthodoxy, I've been troubled to see squabbles over questions such as which calendar to follow and whether to have pews. Would it be a big deal to let people follow a lunar liturgical calendar if they consider it proper?

I don't see why not, the Jewish calendar was the original calendar of the Church. That said, I also don't see why there was a need to change it, there was certainly no "divine commandment" to do so. Though the reason doesn't interest me that much, the Orthodox Church has made changes for whatever reason she saw fit, that's her business between her and God, I'm only interested in what was there before the changes started happening.

Have you considered Romans 14 lately? The Orthodox Study Bible includes this comment regarding the apostle Paul's instructions on respecting one another's scruples:

"In Orthodox Christianity, there are things that cannot be compromised, and there are areas of flexibility. God is gracious and allows diversity in doubtful things (v. 1), matters not related to essential doctrines and moral teachings. The weak in the faith are people who assign primary importance to secondary matters. The two examples of flexible areas given here involve food restrictions (v. 2) and the observance of liturgical calendars (v. 5), things which the weak might try to use to judge others or to divide the Church. In both cases, we are commanded to give flexibility to others just as God Himself does (v. 3)."

Talk about not practicing what you preach! Which is the very definition of hypocrisy. St. Paul specifically stated that "those who are uncircumsized should not seek to be circumcised" but he also said "those who are circumcised should not seek to be uncircumsized"! Seems for most here on this thread "there is neither Jew nor gentile" really means "there is no longer Jew just gentile". St. Paul commanded us to remain as we are, the Orthodox Church is to this day preventing us from obeying this command. Nazarenes and mainstream Messianc Jews are often accused of seeing the world as "Jew and gentile", well if the gentile churches catered to the liturgical needs of Jewish converts (none these are salvation issues anyway) perhaps we wouldn't have to.

You are conflating two conversations-
One possible conversation is what the Orthodox Church can or should do to improve its outreach to various groups. That's an important conversation, and one that should occur even more than it does (although it does occur). However, that's an internal conversation. Those who have not joined themselves to the Bride of Christ, who have not submitted themselves to the authority of the Apostolic tradition, are not in a position to debate what is proper to that Tradition and what is not, to determine what contributes to theosis and what detracts from it, what they actually need vs what they want.

What's there to debate? The blueprint is simple:

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)
2) active outreach - going out into the world, not sitting and waiting for the world to come to you. (Matthew 28:19-20)

There is no later revelation from God that either nullifies this blueprint or changes it in anyway, and furthermore Messiah won't return until the Great Commision is fulfilled (Matthew 24:14).

The other conversation is what groups who are not part of the Apostolic Church can do to make more converts, to make themselves more appealing to certain target groups. Like the first one, that's an internal conversation. Since you do not accept the authority of the Apostolic Tradition, you are free to do whatever you want, and Orthodox input is a simple, "You should accept the Tradition. As long as you are picking and choosing as you will, you will never understand it."

We accept the Tradition, we just don't accept the changes made to it in the post Apostolic period, and we are under no divine obligation to do so, just as you were under no divine obligation to make those changes in the first place.

insistence on Sunday worship

This is a perfect example. It was the Jewish Apostles, those who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry, who beheld His Resurrection, and who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who established 'the Lord's Day', the day of His Resurrection following His Sabbath in the tomb, Sunday as the pre-eminent day of worship for those who would follow the risen Christ. By rejecting it, you are not 're-establishing' the Jewish Church--you are rejecting the Jewish Church Christ actually established in favor of some artificial construct you think makes more sense. Sorry, I'll stick with St. Peter.

mathetes communal worship on "Sunday" (the Havdalah ceremony) predates Messiah. There is actually no "Sunday" on the Hebrew calendar because it's a different calendar. The early Church did partake of the Body and Blood every week, on the 1st day of the week, and yes Messiah did rise from the dead on the 1st day of the week (thereby fulfilling Yom HaBikkurim). The difference is on the Hebrew calendar which they observed, the 1st day of the week began after sunset on our Saturday evening not on our Sunday morning. The Orthodox Church actually does still observe the Apostolic Havdalah (though in a modified form) during it's Saturdy evening Vespers service, and the Orthodox liturgical "day" begins in the evening just like the Jews do.

There was no "Sunday morning" service in the early Church because Sunday (on our calendar) was a working day, back then the early Church had no other "day off" to worship except Sabbath. And as I said earlier the Havdalah ceremony which began after sunset on "Saturday" would often carry on into the early hours of "Sunday morning" (Acts 20:7). Yes the "Sunday morning" service was a later invention, while this invention wasn't a bad idea at all, hey aren't we blessed to have one more free day to devote to worship and rest? I'm not complaining! But that said it still does not replace the Sabbath, which always has been and always will be on the 7th day of the week and is one of the 10 commandments. Yes we are still to keep the Sabbath holy, but Messiah also made the 1st day of the week holy but for a different purpose.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 11:15:11 AM by Nazarene » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #95 on: November 29, 2009, 02:57:38 PM »

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

If it comes down to that, is he worshipping Christ or the liturgical style?

If anything, Jews should be more willing to acquiesce to the established Christian liturgy. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then should they not submit to the forms of worship that were handed down from Messiah's own Apostles and preserved for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit?

I was not raised Orthodox, but evangelical. I didn't like the liturgy when I first started going. I thought the music was bizarre and ugly. While it was theologically wrong, my former church had rich musical traditions of its own I had to leave behind.

It's not someone's place to clamor for changes in liturgy because it doesn't fit with their existing worship culture. People should be concerned about the doctrines and teachings. If you agree with what the church teaches, you must accept the liturgy that goes along with it, because it's part of the doctrine. Form communicates theology, and the liturgy has a specific form for specific theological reasons.

So that goes to my original point: in your example, doesn't it seem silly that Jesus' Messiahship should rest on whether someone likes the Church's music or not. To me it seems shallow that a Jew would reject his long-awaited Messiah because the Prophets are not read in the liturgy.  Huh
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 02:59:40 PM by bogdan » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2009, 03:21:47 PM »

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)


But The Church does contain Jews. You don't need to invent some sort of new polyglot group outside of the Church. You are just trying to make yourself comfortable but Christianity demands personal change. 

Your efforts are understandable up to the point you discover that the Ancient Church still exists. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2009, 04:26:32 PM »

At Kol Nidre (the service emphasizing repentance on Erev Yom Kippur), our rabbi told a touching story often recounted at synagogues during this season. According to the story, a Jewish man about to convert to Christianity decided to give Judaism one last chance. Visiting a synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, he heard the Kol Nidre sung and, sad to say, decided to remain a Jew. Yet if there had been a Messianic Jewish synagogue nearby, he could have continued enjoying his Jewish liturgy even while he embraced saving faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Why force such a man to choose between his beloved Judaism and our blessed Lord?

If it comes down to that, is he worshipping Christ or the liturgical style?

I'm not disregarding the valid point you're making but this is not about "taste in worship style". It is about structuring the liturgy in order that it speaks to Jews in ways that gentiles generally don't understand. So that they can grow in their communion with God through His Son, and be able to draw strength so that they can withstand being shunned by their families and resist the pressure put on them to go back to their former religion. The man in the story wasn't "put off" by gentile Christian worship so much as that it didn't "speak to him" the way he needed it to.

If anything, Jews should be more willing to acquiesce to the established Christian liturgy. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then should they not submit to the forms of worship that were handed down from Messiah's own Apostles and preserved for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit?

Sure as should anyone else for that matter, but that is assuming the Orthdox Church has preserved what the Apostles gave to them, in the exact form it was given them. Such is not the case, changes were made and these changes are documented by early Christian historians. Not that the Jews themselves aren't guilty of making changes of their own, but Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, do not like the idea of changing something that was instated by God either directly or through a divinely appointed authority. For them it gives the impression that the person making the change "thinks that what was divinely appointed is not good enough and that he/she can do a better job than God Himself".

I was not raised Orthodox, but evangelical. I didn't like the liturgy when I first started going. I thought the music was bizarre and ugly. While it was theologically wrong, my former church had rich musical traditions of its own I had to leave behind.

I wasn't raised evangelical but I was evangelical for a few years before I became a Nazarene. I was raised an agonistic, and my mom was an agnostic from a Reform Jewish background, but I have a number of Orthodox Jewish relatives and I deal with Jews who are struggling to "take the leap" into the Faith almost everyday. You cannot compare a transfer to another Christian denomination to an actual conversion to Christianity from a different religion. There is a huge difference between someone who has always acknowledged who Messiah is but is not satisfied with the church he/she attends, and someone who hasn't and has never been to a church or read the NT.

It's not someone's place to clamor for changes in liturgy because it doesn't fit with their existing worship culture.

Well Constantinople didn't mind doing that for Slavs, to this day the Slavic traditions differ from the Greek ones.

People should be concerned about the doctrines and teachings. If you agree with what the church teaches, you must accept the liturgy that goes along with it, because it's part of the doctrine. Form communicates theology, and the liturgy has a specific form for specific theological reasons.

And what was wrong with the way things were done in the Nazarene Church of Jerusalem? That's where the liturgy originated in the first place. Then it went to Alexandria and was "altered" according to Coptic culture, to Rome where it was "Latinized", to Asia Minor where it was "Hellenized", and so on and so forth.

So that goes to my original point: in your example, doesn't it seem silly that Jesus' Messiahship should rest on whether someone likes the Church's music or not. To me it seems shallow that a Jew would reject his long-awaited Messiah because the Prophets are not read in the liturgy.  Huh

Once again it's not simply a cultural thing.

1) Jews first then everyone else. (Romans 1:16)


But The Church does contain Jews.

Yes I know that.

You don't need to invent some sort of new polyglot group outside of the Church.

It doesn't have to be outside the Church. It's just a liturgical rite, I don't see any EO here claiming that the OOs or RCs who do not adhere to the Byzantine rite are outside the Church. Or did I miss something?

You are just trying to make yourself comfortable but Christianity demands personal change.

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

Your efforts are understandable up to the point you discover that the Ancient Church still exists.

Well I feel we're finally making some progress. And of course the Ancient Church still exists, but she's not what she use to be. While the Apostles rebuked certain Nazarene communities for not being sympathetic to the needs of their gentile brethren, today the Church is not being sympathetic to the needs of it's Jewish brethren.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2009, 05:20:55 PM »

I beg your pardon, are you telling me that the Faithful need no longer share the Gospel with Jews?

You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2009, 06:03:01 PM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2009, 06:43:51 PM »

It doesn't have to be outside the Church. It's just a liturgical rite, I don't see any EO here claiming that the OOs or RCs who do not adhere to the Byzantine rite are outside the Church. Or did I miss something?

Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The RCs are in schism from the Church and have been for a thousand years (and that's the *liberal* position; the more traditional position is that they have been in schism and heresy). The relationship of OO and EO is far more complicated, but the simplest description is that the official position of each Church is that the other is in schism and needs to be restored to communion in order to be made whole (the issue of who is being restored and who has been the Church all along being the central question that is preventing union tomorrow).

It is not an issue of 'rite'--the RC's "Eastern-rite Catholics" use the standard EO rite, but they are still heterodox schismatics.

It's about membership in the actual historical institution founded by the Apostles.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2009, 06:46:04 PM »

Nazarene, I at least feel like I understand more where you are coming from now.  But it's not as though you are a part of the Orthodox Church and trying to create a rite to help Hebrew converts.  You have to understand this from the perspective of the Orthodox, where to them you are going through their traditions with a fine-toothed comb and arbitrating what matches your understanding of being of apostolic origin and what is not.  You have to try to understand why that is going to be offensive, considering that the Orthodox consider their faith to be the most complete form of the Christian faith; one which was delivered from Christ Himself.  Whether or not that understanding is historically accurate in all of the particulars, it's still their understanding.

Perhaps so that we are more clear about the problems with the Orthodox liturgy, you could let us know what aspects do not receive the stamp of apostolic authenticity.  Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, while I am thinking of it, why the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Yahoshua?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 06:50:37 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #102 on: November 29, 2009, 07:18:21 PM »

On the Church Calendar today we remember the Apostle Matthew. He was a Jew who worked for the Romans so he was well placed.

When Jesus Christ showed up and said "Follow me" he didn't say: " Only if you make it easy for me" or "As long as I can take along baggage"
He just went with him. That is what we are called to do, leave the old behind and become a new man. Matthew simply walked away from all he had and followed his Lord. No one said it would be easy.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #103 on: November 29, 2009, 07:43:59 PM »

Once again it's not simply a cultural thing.

It seems like it is, though.

The axiom we Orthodox are coming from is that the Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of faith. Sure, practices have changed some, but the faith has not. If you're arguing that the Orthodox Church has not preserved that fullness, I don't think you'll find many embracing your stance.

I would echo Alveus in requesting a little more detail about Nazerine beliefs on some of these matters, because based on what I know and the link you posted earlier in the thread, the theology sounds Protestant more than Apostolic Christianity of any variety.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #104 on: December 01, 2009, 02:12:06 AM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

Marc, please show me where the apostles said a Jew must renounce the lunar liturgical calendar and all its sabbaths and other holy days in order to become a follower of the Messiah. I make this request because you and the others who've rejected Nazarene's fine posts seem at odds with Acts 21:17-25:

 "(17) And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; (21) but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. (23) Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. (24) Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but thatyou yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality'" (New King James Version).


Do you see how the apostles, unlike today's EOs, accommodated the scruples of those Jewish believers in Yeshua? Do you also see how the apostle Paul himself continued keeping the law while he trusted in Yeshua?

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board.

I rejoice to hear of Jews who trust in Yeshua, regardless whether they affiliate with the Nazarenes, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (my group), Eastern Orthodoxy, or any other Bible-believing group. I'm saddened, though, to read of your lack of the flexibility recommended in the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 (quoted in an earlier post of mine). I can't help suspecting that you and other EO posters to this thread are overzealous and out of touch with your religious superiors.

The unwillingness to allow diversity in doubtful areas is a sin that plagues many groups, EOs included. In the apostles' day, Judaizers wanted to force Gentile believers to become Jews. Ever since becoming the majority, Gentile believers have tried to force Jewish believers to become Gentiles. Such inflexibility, I think, has caused much sectarianism. If your religious leaders are as inflexible as you are, Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much the ancient faith as it is an ancient sect.

As to the need for the MJAA and Nazarene's group, what can I say except that men were led by God to form them, likely because of other groups' inflexibility and intolerance? If you ever read The Messianic Times, you'll learn of Jews who have come to faith in the Messiah thanks to the MJAA and other groups.

Please reflect on Luke 15:10: "... There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (NKJV). Our heavenly Father delights in the salvation of sinners. How much are you willing to do to reach them?

 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 02:36:31 AM by mathetes » Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #105 on: December 01, 2009, 04:56:32 AM »

mathetes, was not one of the major sticking points of the early Church the question of the Judaisers - Peter's insistence on Gentiles needing to be circumcised befor being baptised into the Christian faith, versus Paul's argument (which was indeed vindicated) that baptism superseded the "type and shadow" of circumcision? Was Christ's mission, indeed his very person, not the fulfilment and completion of the Mosaic law?

Do Messianic Jews insist on circumcision of males? If so, why? If not, why not?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #106 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:19 AM »

Into a gentile? Jews can't do that, and Paul actually advises against it, likewise gentiles can't change into Jews, and likewise Paul advises against that to. Listen we are believers of the circumcision, were are allowed to remain so, and actually encouraged to remain so. But we have no right to force gentiles to adopt Jewish customs if they don't want to, but at the same time gentiles also have no right to force Jews to adopt gentile customs if they don't want to. The Apostles were against forced Judaization, but that does not mean they weren't also against forced Hellenization, Latinization, Arabization, Americanization, ect., ect., ect.

You are misinformed. I am a Jew who became a Christian via the Holy Church. Any convert has to leave behind some things while gaining everything. It is no harder for an Evangelical to convert and from what I have seen, it can be harder. Families disinherit converts from all faith's, not just Judaism.

Marc, please show me where the apostles said a Jew must renounce the lunar liturgical calendar and all its sabbaths and other holy days in order to become a follower of the Messiah. I make this request because you and the others who've rejected Nazarene's fine posts seem at odds with Acts 21:17-25:

 "(17) And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; (21) but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. (23) Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. (24) Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but thatyou yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality'" (New King James Version).


Do you see how the apostles, unlike today's EOs, accommodated the scruples of those Jewish believers in Yeshua? Do you also see how the apostle Paul himself continued keeping the law while he trusted in Yeshua?

There is no need for your group. The Catholics have an entire organization devoted to Jewish Converts. At the least you should go to Rome. There are plenty of Jewish converts to Orthodoxy. I run into folks all the time. There are several on this board.

I rejoice to hear of Jews who trust in Yeshua, regardless whether they affiliate with the Nazarenes, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (my group), Eastern Orthodoxy, or any other Bible-believing group. I'm saddened, though, to read of your lack of the flexibility recommended in the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 (quoted in an earlier post of mine). I can't help suspecting that you and other EO posters to this thread are overzealous and out of touch with your religious superiors.

The unwillingness to allow diversity in doubtful areas is a sin that plagues many groups, EOs included. In the apostles' day, Judaizers wanted to force Gentile believers to become Jews. Ever since becoming the majority, Gentile believers have tried to force Jewish believers to become Gentiles. Such inflexibility, I think, has caused much sectarianism. If your religious leaders are as inflexible as you are, Eastern Orthodoxy is not so much the ancient faith as it is an ancient sect.

As to the need for the MJAA and Nazarene's group, what can I say except that men were led by God to form them, likely because of other groups' inflexibility and intolerance? If you ever read The Messianic Times, you'll learn of Jews who have come to faith in the Messiah thanks to the MJAA and other groups.

Please reflect on Luke 15:10: "... There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (NKJV). Our heavenly Father delights in the salvation of sinners. How much are you willing to do to reach them?

 

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 10:05:47 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #107 on: December 02, 2009, 03:31:57 AM »

LBK,

Thanks for your questions and your kind way of asking them.

mathetes, was not one of the major sticking points of the early Church the question of the Judaisers - Peter's insistence on Gentiles needing to be circumcised befor being baptised into the Christian faith, versus Paul's argument (which was indeed vindicated) that baptism superseded the "type and shadow" of circumcision?

You're right about Judaizers' infiltration of the early church and about the apostles' handling of the situation. As for Peter, I know that Paul rebuked him by asking, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Galatians 2:14 NKJV). I'm unaware, though, where Peter is said to have insisted on Gentiles' circumcision. Rather, he and other Jews, intimidated by the arrival of circumcised believers from the apostle James, made circumcision a test of fellowship by refusing to eat any longer with the uncircumcised believers in Galatia (Galatians 2:11-13). I think the Orthodox Study Bible is right in noting that the men who came from James were not necessarily representing James when they tried to force the culture of Jerusalem on the church of the Gentiles.

From practitioners of infant baptism, I've heard the assertion that baptism supercedes circumcision, which was a type and shadow of circumcision. My congregation, however, practices the immersion of believers in water and does not regard circumcision as a type and shadow of baptism. In the United States, where we're located, circumcision is largely a moot issue for us because virtually all males are circumcised at birth regardless whether their parents are Jewish or Gentile.

Was Christ's mission, indeed his very person, not the fulfillment and completion of the Mosaic law?

Yes.

Do Messianic Jews insist on circumcision of males? If so, why? If not, why not?

I can't speak for all people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews. Our congregation belongs to the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synogogues (http://iamcs.org/), and the rabbi and nearly all the congregation's members belong to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer).

Our congregation's practice on circumcision is identical to the apostolic practice summarized in Acts 21:17-25, which I quoted in my previous post. Like Paul and the other apostles, we don't tell Jews that they ought to forsake Moses and not circumcise their children or walk according to Jewish customs. We also don't tell Gentiles that they have to be circumcised and adopt Jewish customs. Uncircumcised Gentiles may belong to our congregation, and our rationale for these practices is that they are biblical and apostolic.
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #108 on: December 02, 2009, 04:41:51 AM »

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

Shouldn't it bother you that your denomination admittedly went on to a "new" understanding of salvation? Besides, how carefully have you analyzed your use of the word "church"? By "church," you evidently mean something different from "all called-out believers." For not all called-out believers wanted to dump the lunar calendar and Jewish feasts.

In the second century, one called-out believer, Polycrates of Ephesus, strongly objected to Pope Victor's call for all believers to celebrate our Lord's resurrection on the same day and not according to the lunar calendar. The letter he wrote to the pope was documented by Eusebius and may be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates_of_Ephesus

Polycrates was not alone in following the lunar calendar; moreover, he and other believers who agreed with him were part of the church. Pope Victor's insistence on uniformity, which was later realized under Constantine, departed from the apostolic practice of tolerance documented in Acts 15; 21:17-25; Romans 14. This emphasis on uniformity, along with the excommunication and persecution of dissenters, is characteristic of sectarianism.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

Apparently you use the word "church" to denote an elite inner core of people who, contrary to the apostles, have claimed the authority to insist that Jews abandon Mosaic customs and that Jews and Gentiles all follow the same calendar and customs. Where in Scripture are we told that after the apostles, God would raise up a group of people with the authority to change the times and the seasons?

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.

How is it that your denomination, which you say came up with a "new" understanding of salvation, accuses Messianics of inventing a new religious group and putting ourselves in charge? How are our policies and practices different from instructions handed down by our Lord and the apostles?

Again, I question your use of the word "church." The apostle Paul described the Gentile Ephesian believers as "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22 NKJV). As long as we stay on this foundation, why should we fear getting off course?

You've been unable to show where the apostles ordered Jews to abandon Mosaic customs. Where in Scripture are we told that any church is our authority?
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #109 on: December 02, 2009, 09:31:45 AM »

You make an error that is common to the Protestants, that the Church ended or had less authority after the Apostles. It is very clear that ..THE CHURCH... did not maintain a Lunar Calender or keep the Jewish feasts. They went on to a new understanding of salvation. End of story. In fact, as you know the Church went on to condemn Judaizing Christianity. This does not mean Judaizing Gentiles ( though there are some people who do that) but of Judaizing Christianity itself.

Shouldn't it bother you that your denomination admittedly went on to a "new" understanding of salvation? Besides, how carefully have you analyzed your use of the word "church"? By "church," you evidently mean something different from "all called-out believers." For not all called-out believers wanted to dump the lunar calendar and Jewish feasts.

In the second century, one called-out believer, Polycrates of Ephesus, strongly objected to Pope Victor's call for all believers to celebrate our Lord's resurrection on the same day and not according to the lunar calendar. The letter he wrote to the pope was documented by Eusebius and may be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates_of_Ephesus

Polycrates was not alone in following the lunar calendar; moreover, he and other believers who agreed with him were part of the church. Pope Victor's insistence on uniformity, which was later realized under Constantine, departed from the apostolic practice of tolerance documented in Acts 15; 21:17-25; Romans 14. This emphasis on uniformity, along with the excommunication and persecution of dissenters, is characteristic of sectarianism.

We don't have a squabble about issues like the Sabbath or the Calendar, we disagree on the nature and authority the The Church.

Apparently you use the word "church" to denote an elite inner core of people who, contrary to the apostles, have claimed the authority to insist that Jews abandon Mosaic customs and that Jews and Gentiles all follow the same calendar and customs. Where in Scripture are we told that after the apostles, God would raise up a group of people with the authority to change the times and the seasons?

It's fun to invent an new religious group and put yourself in charge. I get it. It's harder to submit yourself to the authority and wisdom of The Church but that is exactly what you should do. We are firm in this for we fear that you risk your salvation outside the Church and it's wisdom and practices. That does not make us a "Sect". Our history makes us what we are. It makes us worry about people like you who may not realize that they have left the road and are speeding down an exit ramp.

How is it that your denomination, which you say came up with a "new" understanding of salvation, accuses Messianics of inventing a new religious group and putting ourselves in charge? How are our policies and practices different from instructions handed down by our Lord and the apostles?

Again, I question your use of the word "church." The apostle Paul described the Gentile Ephesian believers as "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22 NKJV). As long as we stay on this foundation, why should we fear getting off course?

You've been unable to show where the apostles ordered Jews to abandon Mosaic customs. Where in Scripture are we told that any church is our authority?

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 09:32:32 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #110 on: December 03, 2009, 06:52:22 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 06:59:04 AM by mathetes » Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,494


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 04, 2009, 12:01:35 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #112 on: December 04, 2009, 12:56:48 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,494


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 04, 2009, 12:59:18 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley

Yes. Isn't this synonymous with the Falashas?

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #114 on: December 06, 2009, 06:50:36 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #115 on: December 07, 2009, 05:21:11 AM »

Well, if messianic Juidaism is a cult, then the entire nation of Ethiopia is a cult. Wink

Selam

Shalom, Gebre Menfes Kidus,

Thanks for your response. Are you familiar with Ethiopia's Beta Isra'el?  Smiley



Yes. Isn't this synonymous with the Falashas?

Selam

Shalom,

They are Falashas who have come to believe in our Messiah. Israel won't accept them as immigrants, because of their faith; and they're not allowed to grow food on their land. The MJAA's Operation Tikvah has been helping them with food, clothing, and money for wells.

http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Spg_Tikvah_Home
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2009, 06:44:26 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2009, 09:34:07 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2009, 11:50:04 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2009, 01:22:22 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #120 on: December 08, 2009, 02:03:46 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 08, 2009, 02:41:45 AM »

Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

Oh dear....
Duck and cover everyone.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #122 on: December 08, 2009, 03:51:31 AM »

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ.

Mathetes -- are you even aware of where you are? Or did you just follow some link for Messianic Judaism without a clue where you were going?

Marc is using 'Church' in the sense that Orthodox Christians understand it and have understood it for the last 2000 years. If you are going to participate on a forum called "Orthodox Christianity.net" you should take the time to at least learn basic terminology.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #123 on: December 08, 2009, 09:33:37 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

I am sorry this has been so confusing for you. I will try to be clearer.

Orthodox Christianity does not consider itself a "denomination". It is derived from nothing before it . It is the Original Church.

People who are part of various denominations have a very hard time accepting this. When they hear "Original Church" or "THE Church" they hear it within their expience of being part of a denomination. Therefore, they interpret the meaning as if we are saying :"Our teachings are Superior to yours" Wether that is true or not is another discussion. We must first start with what is factual only and then see what the implications are.

We are the exact same Organization ( Church ) founded on the day of Petecost and have existed continuously since then. This is just like a Worldly group. Take IBM for example. Lets say they were founded in 1930. We can literally trace back  it's founding to a certain date and then follow IBM through time with it's various leaders and CEO's and boards of directors and learn about it's struggles. We can then go to IBM today and know that it is the same company founded in 1930 with the experience of it's own history.

Once people realize that the Church referred to in the Bible, the one recounted in the book of Acts, the one who held councils, complied the Bible and set aright the Christian Doctrine from various heresies ( Arianism, etc.) they have a bit of a dilemma. The ground switch's from denominational question to an imperative to look into The Church since Scripture holds it out as the vehicle for our salvation. You must know discover if The Church has been corrupted in some way . Was Scripture wrong    and Hades has prevailed? Or have they made an error and taken a wrong view of The Church and set up some sort of far flung and unnecessary derivative, such as what you are calling "Messianic Judaism" 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #124 on: December 08, 2009, 11:26:52 AM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It would beorganizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.

 I may know everything about Tiger Woods. I may even become a very good golfer because I try to emulate Tiger Woods, but in reality, I am not Tiger Woods. Plus, I don't have access to the talent God gave Tiger Woods. I also don't have his experience as a Golfer. I would be but a pale shadow of Tiger Woods.

You may hold perfectly correct idea's about The Church. That does not make you The Church.

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

An earlier comment of yours makes me think that in your rationalizing you've been repeating the word church with more than one meaning:

Quote
Only if it is the actual historic Church. The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's.

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him.

In logical thinking, it's crucial for key words not to change meaning, lest confusion result. Please pay attention to the word nothing in the following syllogism:

(1) Nothing is more important than life.
(2) The hole in the middle of a doughnut is nothing.
(3) Therefore, the hole in the middle of a doughnut is more important than life.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ. Granted, Liz, Nazarene, and I are not part of your denomination, but we are part of the community of believers who make up the body of the Messiah. Just because people are not in your church doesn't mean they're outside THE CHURCH.  Smiley

I am sorry this has been so confusing for you. I will try to be clearer.

Orthodox Christianity does not consider itself a "denomination". It is derived from nothing before it .

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?

Quote
It is the Original Church.

People who are part of various denominations have a very hard time accepting this. When they hear "Original Church" or "THE Church" they hear it within their expience of being part of a denomination. Therefore, they interpret the meaning as if we are saying :"Our teachings are Superior to yours" Wether that is true or not is another discussion. We must first start with what is factual only and then see what the implications are.

We are the exact same Organization ( Church ) founded on the day of Petecost and have existed continuously since then. This is just like a Worldly group. Take IBM for example. Lets say they were founded in 1930. We can literally trace back  it's founding to a certain date and then follow IBM through time with it's various leaders and CEO's and boards of directors and learn about it's struggles. We can then go to IBM today and know that it is the same company founded in 1930 with the experience of it's own history.

Once people realize that the Church referred to in the Bible, the one recounted in the book of Acts, the one who held councils, complied the Bible and set aright the Christian Doctrine from various heresies ( Arianism, etc.) they have a bit of a dilemma. The ground switch's from denominational question to an imperative to look into The Church since Scripture holds it out as the vehicle for our salvation. You must know discover if The Church has been corrupted in some way . Was Scripture wrong    and Hades has prevailed? Or have they made an error and taken a wrong view of The Church and set up some sort of far flung and unnecessary derivative, such as what you are calling "Messianic Judaism" 

I do feel as if you've got a stock response here that doesn't quite fit to what other  people are saying.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #125 on: December 08, 2009, 12:05:04 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2009, 12:46:18 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2009, 01:08:48 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
au contraire, Christianity (at least the Orthodoxy) is Ultra Ultra Orthodox.  Original, that is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #128 on: December 08, 2009, 02:08:50 PM »

How can you make a comment like that on a thread titled 'Messianic Judaism?


I pushed ' Enter '

There is no such thing as Messianic Judaism. People who believe in Christ are called Christians.

In the past when someone who knows me as a Jew would ask what type of Judaism I practice
 ( Reform, Conservative or Orthodox). I have answered:

"Ultra Ultra Reformed. I'm a Christian"

Judaizing Christianity is a well worn heresy. They need to grow up and smell the coffee.
au contraire, Christianity (at least the Orthodoxy) is Ultra Ultra Orthodox.  Original, that is.

Right you are..

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2009, 02:09:50 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #130 on: December 08, 2009, 03:23:23 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
I don't resist that idea at all.  It fact, it must be both.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2009, 07:19:46 PM »

I am talking about the Actual Church, in a physical and historical sense. You may not like what it teaches but I am trying to get you to deal with the fact that it still exists. The Church is not a "Denomination" It is Pre-Denominational.. Wether we are an elite or something else is not for us to judge. I am sure that we have many faults. But we are the Apostolic Church. Our line is direct and unbroken from the day of Petacost. We are not invisible. We are here. You can take a bus ride and get to The Church. I can give you the address.

In answer to your challenge, I say again, The Church founded and led by the Apostles and their direct successors don't agree with you. Ignore at your own peril.

Marc1152, with this thread getting long, I won't keep going round and round about the question of what makes a church apostolic or what makes certain officials successors of the apostles. For you, it's important that the laying on of hands be traceable from a current minister back to an apostle. For me, it's more important that a minister be consistent with apostolic preaching and practice. After all, the apostle Paul said, "... Even if we [apostles], or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8 NKJV). Please let this sink in! Not even the apostles themselves, for whom succession was not a question, were to be trusted if they perverted the gospel!

Granted, the accommodation of scruples is less important than the preaching of the gospel; however, I have shown from Scripture that it was the apostles' policy and practice not to make Jewish people abandon the Torah and the customs related to it. I have shown even from the Orthodox Study Bible's note to Romans 14:1 that scruples should be accommodated. By insisting that Jews adopt the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy or at least of Rome, you have departed from apostolic practice and perhaps even from your own leaders' instructions.

Didn't Jesus tell Jewish religious leaders of His day that to be Abraham's seed or God's children, they had to believe as Abraham had done and do what God wanted (John 8:39-44)? Didn't Peter tell the women he was writing to that they were Sarah's daughters if they submitted to their husbands as Sarah had submitted to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)? So why shouldn't my decision to follow or not follow certain leaders depend more on their obedience to God and His word than on their claim to being in an unbroken line of ordinations?

Sadly, the problem Polycrates had with Pope Victor has recurred throughout church history. One group demands change and uniformity while another group chooses to stick with apostolic practice as documented in Scripture. So which group gets blamed for pride and schism? The group that sticks with Scripture, rather than the group that introduces change and tries to make the other group conform.

You have written as if non-EOs think the church has ceased to exist or no longer has a physical address. Amazing! Messianic Jewish synagogues, where not persecuted, are listed with addresses in the phone book just as EO churches are. As to the church, have you forgotten the church triumphant? Do you think Paul and the other apostles didn't go to be with the Lord Jesus (see Philippians 1:23)? Since the apostles are with our Lord, why shouldn't we think it important to follow the instructions they left behind?

I'm sorry, you simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with what is  more important to someone like the laying on of hands or teaching what you feel is correct. I am talking about an historical fact. The actual Church that was founded on Pentecost, was led by the Apostles, sent them out to preach, held councils and figured out the core doctrines of the Church did not disband. It remained organizationally intact though there were important splits. The Church is not an idea. The Church is not invisible. It existed in a physical sense and the exact same Church remains physically present.

Questions?



There's nothing to prevent the Church from being both an idea, and a physical reality.

Only if it is the actual historic Church . The one that can be researched by historians and found to be the exact same Church that has consistently been present and organized throughout the course of time dating from Pentecost. Then of course yes. There is the Church as it exists physically in reality and the idea of the Church which was present in the minds of the Apostles and their successors and in scripture etc......   But you cant take some organization outside of the Church and say it is THE Church based on only idea's. 

I am not Tiger Woods even if I somehow get the idea that I am or if I know every last thing about him. 

Yes, I agree that an idea alone does not make a Church, that wasn't what I was getting at. I just had some reservations about the implication that one must choose between physical reality and ideas, when the Church is quite capable of belonging to both an ideal and a physically present domain.
LOL.  How Anglican.

I remember someone quipped "no one is safe from being an Episcopalian.

Ok, I'm not talking about ideas in the Anglican Church. I'm saying, why are you so resistant to the suggestion of your Church being ideal, as well as physically present?
I don't resist that idea at all.  It fact, it must be both.

Yes, that's what I think. I just think I wasn't managing to get across to Marc what I meant.
Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 08, 2009, 09:41:25 PM »

The equation is quite simple... Orthodox = Original. Orthodoxy is not a made up, Post-schismatic, denominational sect of what used to be the original church. Orthodoxy is the Christian church. It is the continuation of the Apostolic Church.

For those who want to find some type to fit their brand, welcome to Evangelicalism (the Land where grace wanes but thankfully no-one is challenged because of all the flavors) Choices are the key to a happily ignorant life. 

For those who are truly seeking the faith of ancient Christianity, welcome to Orthodoxy. Be baptized in the name of the Triune God, be united to the Holy Spirit, and take part in the life of Christ through the Mystery of the Eucharist, confess your sins and be cleansed of your disease. P.S. Orthodoxy will confound your thoughts and ask you to leave the "old man" behind.

Why would one choose to allow themselves and others to be mislead. Your church has no grace, no authentic Eucharist, no saints, no practical application other than as a humanitarian effort or to distract people from Orthodoxy. With what power do you profess to save souls by? What medicine do you prescribe to heal the sick? 

If you say, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, you can not claim it. Christ Jesus lives in the Orthodox Eucharist. The Holy Spirit governs as the Cornerstone of our faith.

Are you God? For you can not create something from nothing.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 09:48:39 PM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2009, 12:11:23 AM »

Marc1152, this thread has not only grown long but also gotten off track from its original subject, Messianic Judaism. Maybe you should start a new thread for discussing what the true church is and who is or isn't part of the true church.

You've been using the word church to denote both your EO denomination and all members of the body of Christ.

Mathetes -- are you even aware of where you are? Or did you just follow some link for Messianic Judaism without a clue where you were going?

Marc is using 'Church' in the sense that Orthodox Christians understand it and have understood it for the last 2000 years. If you are going to participate on a forum called "Orthodox Christianity.net" you should take the time to at least learn basic terminology.Witega, I've been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy since January 2005, when I joined this forum. If you check my profile and posting history, you'll see that I've quoted the Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox New Testament, and Dr. D.H. Stamatis' Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church, among other EO works. I haven't simply followed a link about Messianic Judaism, nor have I wasted your time by posting my opinions without reading your sources.

Witega, the Orthodox Christians I've met use the term church several ways, much like the examples given in the online Free Dictionary:

Quote
1.  A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
c. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
tr.v. churched, church·ing, church·es
To conduct a church service for, especially to perform a religious service for (a woman after childbirth).
adj.
Of or relating to the church; ecclesiastical.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/church

What I pointed out in my syllogism with the word nothing is that confusion can result when key words are repeated with different meanings. As to Eastern Orthodoxy, I've noticed that it, like Roman Catholics, sometimes uses the word church inconsistently.

Of course, we all agree that this word can denote all believers whom God has called to trust and obey our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

As to our church's physical address, I can't help wondering if Marc recognizes how important it is that Christ, our Savior, sits at God the Father's right hand.

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #134 on: December 09, 2009, 01:12:30 AM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 01:13:47 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #135 on: December 09, 2009, 11:29:17 AM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.
Uhh ohhh. Very Catholic word.  Wink
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 11:29:30 AM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #136 on: December 09, 2009, 04:52:30 PM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.

Uhh ohhh. Very Catholic word.  Wink

The point is that The Church has the Authority to teach  doctrine. RC's have a specific word for it.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: December 09, 2009, 07:17:40 PM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.

Uhh ohhh. Very Catholic word.  Wink

The point is that The Church has the Authority to teach  doctrine. RC's have a specific word for it.
I know. I am just teasing.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2009, 02:17:50 AM »

Mathetes, are you familiar with the Assyrian Church of the East? They are the historical Nazarenes. Please go to:

http://peshitta.org/

(for the scriptures in the original language MarYah's son Meshikha Eshua spoke)

and also to the forum at : Link to competing forum disabled per OC.net forum policy

Assyrians/Arameans read the scripture in Aramaic (they believe in the Peshitta as the original orthodox text of the bible, and that the Greek is a translation, I myself am a Peshitta primacist). There is much that you would be interested in if you are indeed searching for the truth on these issues. Much history and much in tradition which even my Orthodox brothers are not aware of. If the information I am giving you is a bit too overwhelming once you encounter it, please read the official catechism of the COE here:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

the catechism will help you out (for now). It was written in part by a Jewish Qasha (priest) by the way.

Just remember: the Nazarenes of old are indeed the Assyrian Church of the East, and its positions are reflective of the doctrine of the 12 Apostles. There are many things in its tradition which you will not immediately understand, but will require diligent study. The COE grew in complete independence from the other ancient bodies of Christendom, within the confines of the Persian empire , so its tradition cannot be declared "un-apostolic" or somehow tampered with by westerners (as is often thrown at the orthodox for example). This is very important, so please read what I have given you with care.

Shlama w'burkate

(peace and blessings in aramaic)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:22:11 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #139 on: December 10, 2009, 02:26:27 AM »

Welcome, Rafa!
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #140 on: December 10, 2009, 02:49:20 AM »

Thank you for the welcome Salpy  Smiley

I hope we can discuss many interesting things here, especially on the topics Nazarene (who sounds suspiciously similar to an acquaintance at Peshitta.org ) brought up.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #141 on: December 10, 2009, 06:14:06 AM »

I've noticed, however, that EOs and RCCs sometimes use the word to denote an inner core of leaders such as the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC. This meaning is apparent where I hear Catholics or EOs speak of having the church to guide them and set standards on whether bishops or priests must be celibate. Clearly, average EOs and average members of the RCC don't claim to be part of this powerful, inner core of believers.

Wrong.  The magisterium is a part of the Church, but it does not comprise the whole of Her.  When people speak of trusting what the Church teaches, they are not just talking about their bishop or patriarch.  They are speaking about the Holy Scriptures, the patristic writings spanning two millennia, the ecumenical councils, the apostolic creeds, their bishop, their parish priest, the monastics they know who give spiritual council, their fellow parishioners, and most importantly God the Holy Spirit.

So when the Holy Scriptures require tolerance that your subsequent authorities have eliminated, which authority do you obey? and has it ever occurred to you that the subsequent authorities went too far by demanding uniformity instead of unity?  Undecided
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #142 on: December 10, 2009, 06:23:10 AM »

Mathetes, are you familiar with the Assyrian Church of the East? They are the historical Nazarenes. Please go to:

http://peshitta.org/

(for the scriptures in the original language MarYah's son Meshikha Eshua spoke)

and also to the forum at : Link to competing forum disabled per OC.net forum policy

Assyrians/Arameans read the scripture in Aramaic (they believe in the Peshitta as the original orthodox text of the bible, and that the Greek is a translation, I myself am a Peshitta primacist). There is much that you would be interested in if you are indeed searching for the truth on these issues. Much history and much in tradition which even my Orthodox brothers are not aware of. If the information I am giving you is a bit too overwhelming once you encounter it, please read the official catechism of the COE here:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

the catechism will help you out (for now). It was written in part by a Jewish Qasha (priest) by the way.

Just remember: the Nazarenes of old are indeed the Assyrian Church of the East, and its positions are reflective of the doctrine of the 12 Apostles. There are many things in its tradition which you will not immediately understand, but will require diligent study. The COE grew in complete independence from the other ancient bodies of Christendom, within the confines of the Persian empire , so its tradition cannot be declared "un-apostolic" or somehow tampered with by westerners (as is often thrown at the orthodox for example). This is very important, so please read what I have given you with care.

Shlama w'burkate

(peace and blessings in aramaic)


Shalom, Rafa999,

Thanks for your links, and welcome.

No, I'm not familiar with your church, but I'll check out the links. If you've given me a lot of information, I'll need some time, especially since I have a family and a full-time job.  Smiley

Shalom in the Messiah Yeshua,
Mathetes



Link to competing forum in quote box disabled per OC.net forum policy  - PtA
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:23:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
xuxana
babygirl
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 92


i♡ΙΧΘΥΣ!


« Reply #143 on: March 21, 2010, 02:18:55 PM »

gosh they r so cool. im following this messianic jewish lady on twitter & she has all sorts of interesting tweets about her religion. plus they have a fabulous ashram/kibbutz or whatever thingy in israel that i'd like to go to one day.  too bad the real jews dont consider them as authentically jewish.  anyways yeah, i think they r way cool.
Logged

Ephesians 6:10-18
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #144 on: March 21, 2010, 02:31:57 PM »

gosh they r so cool. im following this messianic jewish lady on twitter & she has all sorts of interesting tweets about her religion. plus they have a fabulous ashram/kibbutz or whatever thingy in israel that i'd like to go to one day.  too bad the real jews dont consider them as authentically jewish.  anyways yeah, i think they r way cool.

It depends which Jews. Reform Jews generally consider Messianic Judaism a legitimate sect of Judaism, whilst Orthodox Jews (who consider Reform Jews heretics) do not. But where this is concerned it must be remembered that they distinguish between "Jews" and "Judaism". All Rabbinical Jews consider a person who's mother is Jewish (i.e. ethinically) to be Jewish (again ethnically) as well, regardless of their faith. (IMO this has no basis in the Torah because YHWH made His covenant with Abraham not Sarah, and the ethnicity is actually "Hebrew" not "Jewish"). So while Orthodox Jews acknowledge that Messianic Jews are "Jews" they don't identify Messianic Judaism with their faith.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 02:32:46 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #145 on: March 27, 2010, 12:37:09 AM »

Nazarene, I at least feel like I understand more where you are coming from now.  But it's not as though you are a part of the Orthodox Church and trying to create a rite to help Hebrew converts.  You have to understand this from the perspective of the Orthodox, where to them you are going through their traditions with a fine-toothed comb and arbitrating what matches your understanding of being of apostolic origin and what is not.  You have to try to understand why that is going to be offensive, considering that the Orthodox consider their faith to be the most complete form of the Christian faith; one which was delivered from Christ Himself.  Whether or not that understanding is historically accurate in all of the particulars, it's still their understanding.

Perhaps so that we are more clear about the problems with the Orthodox liturgy, you could let us know what aspects do not receive the stamp of apostolic authenticity.  Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, while I am thinking of it, why the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Yahoshua?

Nazarene, can you address this post?
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2010, 04:57:27 AM »

Nazarene, I at least feel like I understand more where you are coming from now.  But it's not as though you are a part of the Orthodox Church and trying to create a rite to help Hebrew converts.  You have to understand this from the perspective of the Orthodox, where to them you are going through their traditions with a fine-toothed comb and arbitrating what matches your understanding of being of apostolic origin and what is not.  You have to try to understand why that is going to be offensive, considering that the Orthodox consider their faith to be the most complete form of the Christian faith; one which was delivered from Christ Himself.  Whether or not that understanding is historically accurate in all of the particulars, it's still their understanding.

Perhaps so that we are more clear about the problems with the Orthodox liturgy, you could let us know what aspects do not receive the stamp of apostolic authenticity.  Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, while I am thinking of it, why the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Yahoshua?

Ozgeorge pointed out in a thread a while back that Jews have prayers for the departed.  It's known as "yizkor."  From wikipedia...

Quote
Yizkor ("remembrance") prayers are recited by those that have lost either one or both of their parents. There is a custom that those who do not recite the Yizkor prayers leave the synagogue until the completion of Yizkor; the symbolic reason for this is to respect the life of one's living parents. Some rabbinic authorities regard this custom as a superstition.

The Yizkor prayers are recited four times a year, and are intended to be recited in a synagogue with a minyan; if one is unable to be with a minyan, one can recite it without one. These four Yizkor services are held on Yom Kippur, Shmini Atzeret, on the last day of Passover, and on Shavuot (the second day of Shavuot, in communities that observe Shavuot for two days). In the Yizkor prayers God is asked to remember and grant repose to the souls of the departed.

In Sephardic custom there is no Yizkor prayer, but Hashkabóth are recited on Yom Kippur for all members of the community who have died during the last year. A person called up to the Torah may also request the reader to recite Hashkabah for his deceased parents.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #147 on: March 27, 2010, 06:26:01 AM »

Nazarene, I at least feel like I understand more where you are coming from now.  But it's not as though you are a part of the Orthodox Church and trying to create a rite to help Hebrew converts.  You have to understand this from the perspective of the Orthodox, where to them you are going through their traditions with a fine-toothed comb and arbitrating what matches your understanding of being of apostolic origin and what is not.  You have to try to understand why that is going to be offensive, considering that the Orthodox consider their faith to be the most complete form of the Christian faith; one which was delivered from Christ Himself.  Whether or not that understanding is historically accurate in all of the particulars, it's still their understanding.

Perhaps so that we are more clear about the problems with the Orthodox liturgy, you could let us know what aspects do not receive the stamp of apostolic authenticity.  Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, while I am thinking of it, why the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Yahoshua?

Nazarene, can you address this post?

The proper pronunciation for Messiah's name is debated almost as much as the proper pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton. Hebrew just like every other language has changed over the centuries, so the pronunciation and spelling of names have changed throughout the centuries too. Paleo-Hebrew is not the same as the "Hebraized Aramaic" that was spoken in the first century, or the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Masoretic Text, or modern Hebrew which is spoken today (and that's not even getting into the issue of dialects). The current scholarly consensus is that the Saviour's name was spelled "Yeshua" in the first century, though the Galilean dialect of Aramaic tended to drop the last "ah" when it came to vocal pronunciation (hence the Greek transliteration Iesous which would be Yeshu). So while the Galileans pronounced His name as "Yeshu" they still spelled it as "Yeshua". However the older form, Yehoshua, was still in use in the 1st century and both Yeshua and Yehoshua mean the same thing (Salvation of YHWH/YHWH Saves). Think of the names Alexis and Alexa (and their other variants), they are both spelled and pronounced differently but mean the same thing (protector/defender of man).

For more on Yeshua vs. Yehoshua, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 06:28:49 AM by Nazarene » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #148 on: March 27, 2010, 01:41:12 PM »

Nazarene, I was looking for a response to this in particular:

Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.

Thank you for the explanations surrounding Yeshua versus Yehoshua.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 01:41:27 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #149 on: March 27, 2010, 08:20:23 PM »

Actually to my personal knowledge the name "Yeshua" is not in the Aramaic scriptures. Eshoo Meshiha is in scriptures. Jews did not speak Hebrew 2000 years ago, they spoke Aramaic. It's like saying Christ would have his name in old English while everybody was speaking English, and that this would be considered a normal thing. Again you need to be careful. The Galileans did not say Yeshu, that is an offensive acronym, they said "Eshoo" and that would be Eshoo Meshiha for us.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 08:21:11 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #150 on: April 13, 2010, 03:03:24 PM »

Nazarene, I was still waiting for this reply, if you could:

Nazarene, I was looking for a response to this in particular:

Because Messianic Judaism in general seems to be an outgrowth of the (Ana)Baptist churches, I am curious if these elements would be a part of the liturgy and devotions you are constructing:

Veneration of and communion with the saints, especially the Virgin Mariam.

Prayer for the recently reposed.

Real Presence of "Yeshua Messiah" in the Eucharist.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #151 on: April 13, 2010, 03:36:08 PM »



I just bought this today. I heard really good things about it, so I picked up a copy from my church bookstore. I'll let you guys know how it relates to this topic.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,766



WWW
« Reply #152 on: July 12, 2010, 04:36:19 PM »

Hello, I was reading in Haaretz today about diversity in the Jewish Community, and would like to ask how close Messianic Jews are to the Jewish Community. I read a site called "The Messiah Conspiracy," suggesting that if Jesus' followers had restricted their fellowship to Jews, then they would have been accepted as a Jewish sect. I think Lubovich Hassidism, for example, is a big part of the Hassidic Community.



Who is the 'we' that the Jewish community stands for?

By Jay Michaelson, The Forward , 02.07.10
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/who-is-the-we-that-the-jewish-community-stands-for-1.299631

Peoplehood — the notion that we are all united purely by dint of being members of the Jewish people — does not have a geographic or ideological center. It does not have a particular end in mind, except more peoplehood and more continuity. And it has very little actual content. This, as I’ve explored in these pages, is both its great strength, as it unites everybody, and its potential great weakness, since it is low on direction and inspiration.

One of the values of peoplehood is inclusion: creating a Jewish community where participation is open to people of different generations, different nationalities, different levels of education and so forth. But if we want a community that stands for something — for example, support for the existence of the State of Israel — then we are by definition excluding those who do not share that value.

Of course, this principled conflict begs the question of who calls the shots — that is, who the “we” is. Who determines what the “Jewish community” stands for? We don’t actually take a vote of everyone who identifies as Jewish, right? In practice, we heavily weight the votes of those who affiliate more, organize more and, of course, write big checks. This, too, may be the right decision: Without those big checks, our Jewish institutions would not exist, and so it makes perfect sense to care more about what philanthropists think than about what some vaguely disaffected average Jew on the street thinks. But let’s be clear that this prioritization is also a de facto decision.

The point, however, is not that such decisions are right or wrong, entitled or not — only that they are diametrically opposed to the promotion of Jewish peoplehood.

Though this may seem obvious, it clearly isn’t, judging by the way this intra-communal conflict has played out on the ground. For example, I recently participated in a panel in the Bay Area called “Perspectives on Zionism.” In helping to assemble a diverse panel, I ran into problems.

In a way, the choice between inclusion of all Jewish people and shared communal values is a very old one. Long ago, our community leaders decided that Jewish Christians (and before them, Israelite pagans) did not have a place at the Jewish communal table. Since then, Jewish institutions have banned rationalist philosophers, nationalist zealots, messianists, communists, proselytizers and heretics. As long as there have been synagogues, there have been doors and locks put on them. And, of course, there have always been donor walls, too.


But there are new elements, as well. There is indeed a shifting of climate within and beyond the Jewish world. Outside, once radical views are now commonplace.

And inside the Jewish community, we’ve seen both the rise of moderate groups such as J Street and a hardening of conservative positions among the Jewish “establishment.” This has led to some curious results: As my colleague J.J. Goldberg wrote recently, to express critical views openly in America might get you fired. So there is much that is old, and much that is new, in our historical moment.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 04:47:32 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #153 on: November 14, 2010, 12:53:09 PM »

I believe the Torah was given to Israel, and I'm not of Jewish ancestry myself (so it doesn't really make any difference to me), but I've often wondered what Jesus meant when He said:

Think not that I've come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, I have not come to destroy but to fill full. For truly I say to you that not a jot or stroke will pass from the Law till everything comes to pass.

I've got the first part (He filled it full by living it, showing us how to love God and Man, and being our Passover sacrifice), but the second part seems to imply that Jews (or at least unconverted Jews, who are not yet new creatures in Christ) would be under some obligation to keep the Torah until God wraps things up at the second coming.

Paul also seems to be saying something like that in Romans 2:12.

For as many as have sinned without the law will be judged without the law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.

My question is "would an irreligious, non-observant jew (like Marx or Freud) who converted to Orthodoxy, have to confess his breaking of the law (working on the Sabbath, eating on Yum Kipur, not keeping kosher, etc. etc.) to an Orthodox priest befor receiving absolution and Chrismation?"
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 12:54:26 PM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,766



WWW
« Reply #154 on: November 14, 2010, 03:27:25 PM »

My question is "would an irreligious, non-observant jew (like Marx or Freud) who converted to Orthodoxy, have to confess his breaking of the law (working on the Sabbath, eating on Yum Kipur, not keeping kosher, etc. etc.) to an Orthodox priest befor receiving absolution and Chrismation?"
Christians also have a rule to observe the sabbath, have fasting, have canons against eating blood. However, I don't think that it is considered a "sin" to break them.

Fasting from sin is more important than physical fasting.

Consequently, you ask a deep question. The right answer might be hard to find, but a mistaken answer treated lightly won't hurt you too much, I think.
Logged
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #155 on: November 15, 2010, 09:53:35 AM »

After watching the video,it seems they are very close in practice,to modern day Pentacostals,and also a question for Nazarene,do you practice both Baptism and Circumcision?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,497


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #156 on: November 15, 2010, 10:46:35 AM »

I believe the Torah was given to Israel, and I'm not of Jewish ancestry myself (so it doesn't really make any difference to me), but I've often wondered what Jesus meant when He said:

Think not that I've come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, I have not come to destroy but to fill full. For truly I say to you that not a jot or stroke will pass from the Law till everything comes to pass.

I've got the first part (He filled it full by living it, showing us how to love God and Man, and being our Passover sacrifice), but the second part seems to imply that Jews (or at least unconverted Jews, who are not yet new creatures in Christ) would be under some obligation to keep the Torah until God wraps things up at the second coming.

Paul also seems to be saying something like that in Romans 2:12.

For as many as have sinned without the law will be judged without the law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.

My question is "would an irreligious, non-observant jew (like Marx or Freud) who converted to Orthodoxy, have to confess his breaking of the law (working on the Sabbath, eating on Yum Kipur, not keeping kosher, etc. etc.) to an Orthodox priest befor receiving absolution and Chrismation?"

No
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #157 on: November 21, 2010, 11:55:18 PM »

I was wrong : "Yeshua" is the proper pronunciation, "Eshoo Meshiha" is a more modern Assyrian pronounciation which as evolved over time.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2010, 08:12:27 AM »

I have a couple of questions, Do those who hold to Messianic Judaism,are they in a sense Judaizers? I know that this movement has become very popular, especially within Protestantism. Isn't this the very thing the Early Church spoke against?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 08:13:14 AM by DennyB » Logged
lizzyd
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 54


« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2010, 09:57:04 AM »

Do those who hold to Messianic Judaism,are they in a sense Judaizers? I know that this movement has become very popular, especially within Protestantism. Isn't this the very thing the Early Church spoke against?

I wonder that too... especially when I see people with absolutely no Jewish background becoming Messianic Jews. I guess I am confused on when it's Judaizing and when it's not.

This has been a really interesting thread! I grew up with a church that was involved with Jews for Jesus, and I'm on another message board that has a lot of Messianic Jews - so I am very curious about all this. I recently finished Fr. James Bernstein's book "Surprised by Christ." It was a very good read and really made the OT come alive for me. I highly recommend it though he doesn't really get into all of the questions I've seen raised in this thread.
Logged
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #160 on: November 25, 2010, 07:45:15 AM »

Do those who hold to Messianic Judaism,are they in a sense Judaizers? I know that this movement has become very popular, especially within Protestantism. Isn't this the very thing the Early Church spoke against?

I wonder that too... especially when I see people with absolutely no Jewish background becoming Messianic Jews. I guess I am confused on when it's Judaizing and when it's not.

This has been a really interesting thread! I grew up with a church that was involved with Jews for Jesus, and I'm on another message board that has a lot of Messianic Jews - so I am very curious about all this. I recently finished Fr. James Bernstein's book "Surprised by Christ." It was a very good read and really made the OT come alive for me. I highly recommend it though he doesn't really get into all of the questions I've seen raised in this thread.


I will give it a look,and yes this is an interesting thread.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,766



WWW
« Reply #161 on: November 26, 2010, 02:34:25 PM »

Lizzy,

I would love to hear about Father Bernstein's book from you! Like what was it that made him become Christian, and which OT prophecies did he find predicted Christ's resurrection?

Second, regarding Messianic Judaism, look at the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. The Council decided that Christian Jews would continue their customs, while non-Jewish Christians would be free from some of them. St Paul makes explanations of why non-Jewish Christians are free from some customs of the OT law. Further, it seems like both groups in Christianity would be free from some OT customs, like animal sacrifice.

At least on the face of it, non-Jews starting to obeying certain OT laws like ritual circumcision would go against St Paul's view. On the other hand, the Council of Jerusalem sounds like our Orthodox Church should make space for Jews who wish to continue the practice.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2010, 02:35:16 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #162 on: November 26, 2010, 03:33:56 PM »

Messianic Judaism is a heretical sect.
 Duplicate accounts are not permitted here, especially when used to get around being banned.
Logged