Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Open Letter to Toby Janicki at First Fruits of Zion





Toby,

I just read your review of "World of the Ger" by the orthodox Jewish rabbi Chaim Clorfene and I'm a little puzzled.  You wrote:
"I have read quite a few of these books and, unfortunately, have found more than a few of them to be less than encouraging for my spiritual walk. In many of them, I have felt that the path suggested by the author would cause me to take a step back in my spirituality, Torah practice, and relationship with God. With a few exceptions, I would not recommend these books to others. But The World of the Ger by Rabbi Chaim Clorfene is a completely different story," Toby Janicki, teacher at First Fruits of Zion and Vine of David.  From:  http://ffoz.org/discover/reviews/the-world-of-the-ger.html
So you're recommending this book to your fellow Gentile Believers because you think it will be encouraging for their spiritual walk, cause them to take a step forward in their spirituality, Torah practice, and relationship with God.

But this is a puzzling recommendation given that Rabbi Chaim Clorfene in his books tries to get Gentiles to renounce Yeshua.  Here is a statement from one of his Noahide converts:
"I struggled with Christianity for years until I found out about the Noahide covenant. This book is wonderful for anybody who wants to learn more about the 7 Noahide laws. I am now under the direction of an orthodox rabbi, and moving forward on the path that G-d wants me to follow. Most importantly, everything makes sense...no strange doctrines such as the trinity, just common sense straight from G-d through the rabbis. The Noahide movement is growing, and more and more Christians are returning to G-d alone. This book will get you off on the right foot.  Shalom!" top ranked comment from customer reviews section on the Amazon.com page for The Path of the Righteous Gentile by Chaim Clorfene:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Path-Righteous-Gentile-Introduction/dp/087306433X
Rabbi Clorfene's strategy for getting Gentiles to renounce Yeshua is simple:  convince Gentiles to accept Rabbinic Authority as absolute.  Here's an excerpt from Rabbi Clorfene's book entitled "The Path of the Righteous Gentile":
      "The hurdle that must be cleared in preparation for observing the Seven Noahide Commandments is the acceptance of the idea that mankind’s way to the Father is through the oral tradition of Judaism, known as the Oral Torah. Rebellion against the sanctity and authority of Oral Torah has been with us since those first days in the Wilderness of Sinai when the followers of Korah led a revolt against absolute authority of Moses, as we learn in the Book of Numbers, “And they assembled themselves against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, You assume too much; for the whole of the congregation are all of them holy, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then will you lift yourselves up above the congregation of the Lord? (Numbers 6:3).”
     In the end, God performed a great miracle to demonstrate His preference for the Mosaic authority, “And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them and their houses and all the men that were for Korah and all their wealth. And they went down, they and all who were for them, alive into the pit; and the earth closed over them and they disappeared from the midst of the congregation (Numbers 16:32,33).”
When God gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai, all the people accepted the Written Torah willingly, but God had to lift the mountain over their heads and threaten to drop it on them to persuade them to accept the Oral Torah.  If the Jews had difficulty in accepting the Oral Torah as no less divine than Scripture, how much more difficult must it be for the non-Jews. But accept the oral tradition they must, for the source of understanding the Seven Noahide Commandments is found in the Talmud and later rabbinic teachings, and nowhere else
," Rabbi Clorfene, The Path of the Righteous Gentile
Your director at First Fruits of Zion, Boaz Michael, used a similar strategy when he said:
     "One way is the unique role that the Jews have [and one] that is completely removed within the One Law theology is an across the board rejection of the authority of the Jewish people to define the halachic parameters of how the Torah is to be applied. One Law theologians have no desire to defer to the halachic standard normative of the Jewish people because in doing so would remove any basis for the idea that Gentiles should be obligated to the Torah the exact same way as Jews. Judaism has always rejected this idea and rightfully so.
     In rejecting the right and the responsibility of the Jewish people to define what it means to be Jewish and practice Judaism, One Law theology strikes directly at the core of authentic Judaism. One Law replaced the Jewish rabbis and sages with self-appointed Gentiles who believe that they are divinely sanctioned to interpret Torah outside of the Jewish context. Whatever conclusion they come to are given a greater weight than those of the Jewish halachic authorities. That can be compared to the rebellion of Korah in the wilderness
,"  Boaz Michael, from:  http://dailyminyan.com/2012/08/01/part-ii-excerpts-from-umjc-2012-conference-lecture-by-boaz-michael-ffoz/
So I basically just have 2 questions for you:

Are you still a believer in Yeshua?

If so, why are you encouraging Gentiles to listen to rabbis like Clorfene who have a proven history of persuading Gentiles to renounce Yeshua?

37 comments:

  1. "Messianic Judaism" for so many is a step stone OUT of Christianity and toward either being a Righteous Gentile (a person who abandoned his former religion, i.e. idolatrous worship of a dead man) or to Judaism. So, perhaps there is indeed a silver lining to the whole messianic shtick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene,

      If FFOZ teaches that the Rabbis should be obeyed like Moses then wouldn't that make them facilitators of Non-Messianic Judaism as opposed to teachers of Messianic Judaism.

      And now that I think about it... not only Toby Janicki and Boaz Michael but also Tsvi Sadan teaches that the Rabbis have absolute Mosaic authority:

      "Because the new Testament teaches Yeshua’s followers to observe Torah, it also necessarily teaches to keep the tradition of the fathers, or the Oral Law [i.e. Rabbinic Authority]," Tsvi Sadan, Halakic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community

      And maybe that's why you enjoyed working directly with Boaz Michael at the above-referenced conference...perhaps you were enjoying attacking true Messianic Judaism even back then.

      By the way, thanks for transcribing Boaz Michael's statements for us. That was very helpful.

      Shalom,

      Peter

      Delete
    2. Couldn't have said it better, Gene.

      Peter, how doesn't FFOZ qualify as Messianism, since all they're saying is Yeshu's supposed words about following the Sages?

      Delete
  2. Can you link the source, don't get me wrong, I am not surprised, I just want to see the context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I put it at the very end of the quote but I should've included a hypertext to make it easier. Here's the link:

      http://ffoz.org/discover/reviews/the-world-of-the-ger.html

      Delete
  3. "If FFOZ teaches that the Rabbis should be obeyed like Moses then wouldn't that make them facilitators of Non-Messianic Judaism as opposed to teachers of Messianic Judaism. "

    Well, Peter, FFOZ is doing no more than Jesus himself did, when he commanded his disciples to do EVERYTHING that the rabbis told them to do. So, FFOZ is being consistent here while you are ignoring the words of the sacred meat-god.

    "And maybe that's why you enjoyed working directly with Boaz Michael at the above-referenced conference...perhaps you were enjoying attacking true Messianic Judaism even back then."

    I can't deny that it was often satisfying (and easy) to demolish One Law and Two House lunacy and then to see so many people leave that destructive anti-Jewish dreamed-up nonsense behind.

    "By the way, thanks for transcribing Boaz Michael's statements for us. That was very helpful."

    That was the least I could do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

      Would that include, in your opinion, no worshipping Jesus? Did Jesus wanted his followers to keep the oral law as well?

      Delete
    2. "Would that include, in your opinion, no worshipping Jesus? "

      Remi, I think it would. After all, at the time he said that, the disciples had no clue that he was supposedly a deity (Jesus certainly didn't either) and would certainly agree with the Pharisees that worshiping and calling some guy "god" would be a crazy, reprehensible and idolatrous thing for a Jew to do.

      "Did Jesus wanted his followers to keep the oral law as well?"

      It is obvious even from the NT that Jesus himself practiced the oral law as a natural extension of the written Torah. There was not other way to be a faithful Jew, since so many aspects of the written Torah are not detailed enough to practice it without explanation and elaboration. But NT is not consistent in its attack on Judaism - it's all over the place. It seeks to establish legitimacy of Christianity by relying on Judaism's lengthy legacy and at the same time, it desperately wants to distance itself from Judaism and Jews.

      In NT, Pharisees are either hypocrites to be avoided and denounced or they are teachers to be obeyed to the fullest; they are either caring friends who saved Jesus' life and that of his disciples or they are breathing hatred and trying to trip Jesus up and have him killed.

      It didn't take long for Christianity to finally decide which view of Jews would prevail among its faithful. The obstinate Jews had to be demonized and the rest is history.

      Delete
    3. remi wrote:
      "Did Jesus wanted (sic) his followers to keep the oral law as well?"

      Gene wrote:
      "It is obvious even from the NT that Jesus himself practiced the oral law as a natural extension of the written Totah."

      remi, Gene has declared the Apostolic Writings to be fabricated by church scribes many times. Why even ask him the question? Not sure why he bothered answering it.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I was not asking necessary only to Gene, but to everyone (including Gene and Aaron). I am interested to know what you and Peter think about that too.

      Delete
    5. Jason, NT IS a fabrication, a Christian propaganda penned by church scribes and edited by later Christians and Roman church councils. However, I do believe that there may have been a person by name Jesus (or whatever the original name may have been) who was a first century religious Jew, most likely a Pharisaic Jew, whose followers thought he may have been a messianic candidate (there were dozens if not more of those "candidates" at the time). He uttered various sayings, clearly first-century Jewish in origin (some may have been uttered by other Pharisaic teachers at the time, but were incorporated as if coming from Jesus), which were passed around, first among his Jewish followers and then elaborated on by later Gentile scribes, that ended up in the 'NT', along with everything else we see in there today.

      Delete
    6. Gene,

      Where did Yeshua say "Do everything the rabbis [of the Talmud] tell you to do"?

      Yeshua said that there were some teachings of the Pharisees that served to "nullify the word of God" (Matthew 15). So obviously Yeshua didn't think EVERY Pharisaical teaching issued from the "Seat of Moses" (Matthew 23). Rather, Yeshua taught that the Scribes and Pharisees (of the first-century) were to be followed--provided that what they were teaching did not contradict the Torah of Moses.

      And to prove my point...

      We know that the Sanhedrin was composed of both Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23). And so in Acts 5 we know that the Apostles disobeyed Pharisees that were on the Sanhedrin:

      "7 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"

      Those closest to Yeshua, the Apostles, were clearly in the best position to interpret His teachings. And they interpreted Him as NOT giving absolute authority to the Pharisees.

      Delete
    7. Gene wrote:
      "I do believe that there may have been a person by name Jesus"

      I'm interested to know why? Perhaps because you accept the rabbinic writings? The whole debate is really about which set of manuscripts to believe.

      Delete
    8. Peter, today's Orthodox rabbis are direct religious and physical descendants of the "Pharisees" of the Jesus times. Jesus taught his followers to do "everything they tell you". Assuming (a crazy assumption for a first century Jew) that he couldn't have meant listening to rabbis telling them not to worship a man-god,so besides that, why aren't you obeying the rabbis (halacha) in everything else?

      Delete
    9. Gene wrote:
      "why aren't you obeying the rabbis (halacha) in everything else?"

      Seeing that Peter has dedicated who knows how many posts to rabbinic writings, and seeing that your standard objection is *not* to accept them, is this sarcastic?

      Somehow you accept that the codified oral tradition has survived intact even though the Torah itself was lost and found, the Temple was destroyed splintering the 1st century community, and 1000 years passed before we find a few manuscripts, but you don't accept the AW, of which there are manuscripts less than 100 years removed from the events themselves!

      Why wouldn't any objective argument you make against the far older, more frequent, more geographically diverse apostolic writings apply to the oral tradition and rabbinic writings?

      Delete
    10. "Seeing that Peter has dedicated who knows how many posts to rabbinic writings, and seeing that your standard objection is *not* to accept them, is this sarcastic?"

      Peter doesn't follow Jesus instructions about observing halacha of the rabbis. He doesn't observe it, despite believing that Jews and Gentile should observe Torah equally. The writings of rabbis on this blog are employed only to twist them to support deification of Jesus.

      "Why wouldn't any objective argument you make against the far older, more frequent, more geographically diverse apostolic writings apply to the oral tradition and rabbinic writings?"

      The actual content of rabbinic discussions written down in Talmud and Mishnah far predates the so called "apostolic writings" (which were not written by any of the apostles and when).

      Delete
    11. Gene wrote:
      "Peter doesn't follow Jesus instructions about observing halacha of the rabbis..."

      Which halacha of which rabbis? (Be careful not to respond anachronistically.)

      Gene wrote:
      "[Peter] doesn't observe [rabbinic halacha], despite believing that Jews and Gentile should observe Torah equally."

      Correct. (rabbinic halacha != Torah)

      Gene wrote:
      "The writings of rabbis on this blog are employed only to twist them to support deification of Jesus."

      As you just did, I've noticed that your MO is not to challenge the quoted material directly but to question the credibility of the rabbi or the context without submitting any supporting evidence. Your opinion doesn't sway me but information can.

      Gene wrote:
      "The actual content of rabbinic discussions written down in Talmud and Mishnah far predates..."

      As you well know, the context of my comment was the physical manuscripts.

      Delete
    12. "is this sarcastic?"

      I think it only shows another contradiction. Here, Yeshua say that you should listen to them (the orthodox rabbi of today), but so many other places Paul clearly say you don't have to even keep the law. Paul and Jesus both attacked the oral law as a fabrication of men, but here, Jesus said you should listen to them!

      A lot of messianic say they follow the law, but seriously, each makes his on sets of rules for Sabbath keeping, kosher, etc. It goes back to this "each man does what is right in his own eye." Without specific rules, which is found in the oral torah, it seems impossible for two individuals to keep Sabbath the same way. They are redefining what the Bible tells them. This is just a reality I observed at my messianic congregation, and in my own life when I decided to keep Sabbath as a messianic. And of course, each time reminded myself that I am not saved by keeping sabbath, but by faith, when I did not follow it as per my own standards.

      Delete
    13. "I think it only shows another contradiction."

      Remi, exactly!

      Delete
    14. remi wrote:
      "Here, Yeshua say that you should listen to them (the orthodox rabbi of today)"

      Do orthodox rabbis not deny the very Apostolic Writings that tell Yeshua's followers to "obey them".

      remi wrote:
      "but so many other places Paul clearly say you don't have to even keep the law."

      Where?

      Delete
    15. Hebrews 8:13 OBSOLETE
      Romans 7:6 RELEASED FROM
      Galatians 3:13 A CURSE
      Galatians 3:23-25 we are no longer under a schoolmaster
      1 cor 8:7 Christ law
      Romans 14:5
      Romans 14:2

      This is not an exhaustive list. I know you provably have an explanation why it does not mean what it means. But here is a few verses that seem like it say you don't have to keep the law.

      Delete
    16. "I know you provably have an explanation why it does not mean what it means."

      Pauline Christianity, that is Christianity that started in churches which Paul and his disciples helped found, always knew exactly what Paul's words meant and fully implemented them. We can seen many glimpses of it in the NT itself, that is of how Paul was perceived by Jews of his day, people who were in far, far better position to understand and judge him than a few modern liberal theologians who are trying to "read" Paul's mind in attempt to whitewash him.

      Delete
    17. I think that the NT say both, and that's why there is so many discrepancies. Paul usually wins because he say that you are cursed and have no faith if you keep the LAW. So, people don't want to be left behind and not trusting totally on Jesus (faith alone), so they don't keep the law at all. Others, think it would contradict the Hebrew Bible and explain Paul in a way or another. They usually still agree with faith alone, but say that the HS will lead them to keep the law. That seems contradictory on so many NT verses.

      Delete
    18. Jason, maybe you can explain why you think the NT shows we still have to keep the law...

      Delete
    19. Remi wrote... "Hebrews 8:13 OBSOLETE"

      v10-law written on minds and hearts supersedes previous covenant, not the law itself

      ...
      "Romans 7:6 RELEASED FROM"

      ‭‭delivered from penalty, read v12:
      Romans‬ ‭7:12‬ ‭NKJV
      Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
      ‬‬
      ...
      "Galatians 3:13 A CURSE"

      those who break the law are under its penalty/curse; Yeshua frees us from the curse not the instruction itself. See v10 and v12

      ...
      "Galatians 3:23-25 we are no longer under a schoolmaster"

      παιδαγωγὸς here is better translated guardian. The paidagōgos was a slave entrusted with a boy's safety. The law protects us until faith comes, that is until comes the understanding of Yeshua's suffering for sin puts desire for G-d and His law. See v21

      ...
      "1 cor 8:7 Christ law"

      You lost me.

      ...
      "Romans 14:5
      Romans 14:2"

      ‬‬1 Cor 8 is a very similar passage. Some did not eat meat for fear of it being sacrificed to idols before reaching the market. This is about meat vs vegetables not non-food (unclean) vs food (clean). Regarding days of the week, Sabbath is not mentioned so maybe some were fasting/meeting on specific days?

      Delete
    20. Thanks for your reply. It does make sense. I have three questions for you.

      Did the Christians had to bring sacrifices to the temple?

      How can two people use the same exact verse and arrive at two exact opposite conclusion? Why would you have to conclude that the others are wrong and that you are right?

      What if you break it? Did you repent and say to yourself that you are not saved by keeping the law? As a christian I always had a hard time to figure that one out.

      Delete
    21. remi wrote:
      "Did the Christians had to bring sacrifices to the temple?"

      As they learned the Law (Acts 15:21) and if they were allowed by the Jewish authority of that day, yes, just as it will be:

      Isaiah‬ ‭56:7‬b NKJV
      “Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

      remi wrote:
      "How can two people use the same exact verse and arrive at two exact opposite conclusion? Why would you have to conclude that the others are wrong and that you are right?"

      I try to distill meaning out of the text. If one is pursuing truth wherever it leads, there is no risk. Debate is a great way to test ideas. Dissent is healthy (sans, of course, man-god! idol! that man! Yeshu!).

      remi wrote:
      What if you break it? Did you repent and say to yourself that you are not saved by keeping the law? As a christian I always had a hard time to figure that one out.

      Law following is the symptom or effect of faith, not the cause. Faith leads to action. The more I discover the beauty of G-d's Law (instructions, boundaries, blueprint, protection), the more I desire to learn. Those born under the Law already have its protection (Gal 3:23). When I break the Law I confess and move forward, with faith that Yeshua has authority from G-d to forgive me before His millennial kingdom begins.

      Delete
    22. Hi Jason, what about Hebrews 10:1?

      The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

      This seems like it say that sacrifices are no more needed. Remember that the Temple was still standing when it was written. I think it could show that those sacrifices were not needed and insufficient.

      "I try to distill meaning out of the text. If one is pursuing truth wherever it leads, there is no risk."

      Are you saying that 99% of the followers of Yeshua are dishonest? I think that they are and they arrived at the exact opposite conclusion and would probably call you legalistic (without offence). They at least would say that you have a weak faith. I don't think that your interpretation is bad or that you have a weak faith, but some NT passages seem like it could imply that. I think that their is a reason why it has been interpreted like that.

      Galatians 3:23
      Ok, that's interesting... The law was a guardian and a curse in the same time? How could that be? Or it was there to protect us, or it was there to condemn us. How did people get saved before Yeshua? By the hope of the future messiah? Or by keeping G-d's commandments?

      Delete
    23. remi wrote:

      "...what about Hebrews 10:1...it could show that those sacrifices were not needed and insufficient."

      Animal sacrifice hasn't and won't negate sin.


      remi wrote:
      "Are you saying that 99% of the followers of Yeshua are dishonest?"



      Not dishonest, misinformed.



      remi wrote:

      "[they] would probably call you legalistic... They at least would say that you have a weak faith."



      Some do. Legalism is either creating law (adding frivolous rules) or misusing law (removing faith). I advocate neither.



      remi wrote:

      "Galatians 3:23
      Ok, that's interesting... The law was a guardian and a curse in the same time? How could that be?"

      Guardian = protection from consequence by obedience

      Curse = consequence of disobedience



      remi wrote:

      "How did people get saved before Yeshua? By the hope of the future messiah? Or by keeping G-d's commandments?"



      People at all times have understood sin and G-d's righteousness:



      ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:20‬ ‭NKJV

      “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,”

      ‬‬

      And sorrow leads to faith in G-d to save which leads to obedience:



      ‭‭James‬ ‭2:21-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

      “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?”

      Delete
    24. But Jesus was not there... If the law protects against by obedience, and none could have keep it. The law was not such a good guardian and all suffer the curse. It's clear that as per Ezekiel one has to turn from his sins and do what is right, and G-d will forgive our sins. Why then, after Jesus becomes needed?

      Delete
    25. remi wrote:
      "...none could have keep it. The law was not such a good guardian and all suffer the curse."

      The law only protects through obedience. Before very recently, American doctors didn't wash hands after touching the dead and bled people to stimulate healing. Through ignorant disobedience in an attempt to help they inflicted harm and participated in the physical curse. In a similar way, there would be spiritual protection in complete obedience. However, even those with knowledge of the law die spiritually through disobedient rebellion. By definition there is physical and spiritual protection and curse in the law.

      remi wrote:
      It's clear that as per Ezekiel one has to turn from his sins and do what is right, and G-d will forgive our sins. Why then, after Jesus becomes needed?

      John the Baptist said the same thing. Practically speaking we turn and ask G-d to forgive. For Yeshua, however, there was more to do. And now that He has, faith has come.

      To admit sin is to understand G-d's righteousness and perceive His wrath. For spiritual justice, there is a legal requirement to execute judgment. His wrath and love for man are therefore made perfect (complete) in His Son, not animal sacrifice. Today, sorrow over sin and knowledge of wrath leads to repentance and acceptance for those who hear the Good News.

      You know somewhere in your being that saying you're sorry and trying again doesn't appease G-d logically or legally.

      ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3:22-23‬ ‭NKJV
      But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

      Delete
    26. remi,

      I replied to the article you referenced here:

      https://roshpinaproject.com/2016/03/11/why-some-messianic-jews-are-acting-like-posers-and-making-themselves-unhappy/#comment-149949

      In case the comment gets moderated, here it is:

      The Real Messianic (remi) wrote:
      “Hi Ianmajor14, it looks like it’s more a complicated issue than that. Some believe that even Gentiles SHOULD keep the law.”

      Ianmajor14 wrote:
      “Those who say that put themselves outside of Christ. It is another gospel which denies Gentiles full citizenship in the Israel of God without circumcision, etc. These teachers are not a sub-group of the Church, but false teachers like their earlier colleagues in Galatia. Neither they nor the Jehovah Witness, Mormons, etc. have any right to be termed followers of Yeshua.”

      Yikes. Let’s take a look…

      ianmajor14 wrote:
      “That the NC law is not identical to the Mosaic Law is evident in the apostolic removal of the latter from mandatory to optional:
      1 Corinthians 7… 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters…”


      The premise here is that there is something called “New Covenant Law”, which makes “Mosaic Law” optional. Not according to Messiah Yeshua:

      Matt 5:19 NKJV
      Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      The context of 1 Cor 7:19 centers about whether adult male Gentile believers should be required to undergo (mass) circumcision. There and in Acts 15, we learn… no. This does not mean that these believers wouldn’t join the synagogues (before they were ultimately thrown out), learn Torah, and circumcise their sons on the 8th day. In fact, we know that some were circumcised and kept the Passover:

      1 Cor 5:8 “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

      ianmajor14 wrote:
      “Colossians 2…14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross…16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”

      ianmajor14 wrote: “These were not invented days, but the days of the Mosaic Law that were types and shadows of the fulfilment in Christ. We are no longer obliged to observe them – but had we lived under Moses, it would have been a sin not to.”

      Colossians 2:14: handwriting in the decrees = χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν (cheirographon tois dogmasin)
      The word decree (dogma) is the same used in Luke 2:1 “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus”. It does not mean Law as in:
      Matt 5:19: Law or the Prophets = νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας (nomon ē tous prophētas)

      Delete
    27. ...continued...

      In fact, Nomos (Law) isn’t even found in the book of Colossians. Here’s an exhaustive list:
      http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3551.htm

      The decree, or “record of debt” as the ESV renders the phrase, is related to the penalty incurred for “trespassing” (Col 2:13), not the Law itself. Our guilt is nailed to the cross, not our instructions for righteousness.

      What’s also interesting about this passage is v16. Who is doing the “judging” with regard to food, drink, festival, new moon, and Sabbath? Was it Orthodox Messianic Jews trying to get Colossian Gentiles to follow Torah? Or… as v18 illustrates, people given over to “asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind” (ESV) and “according to human precepts and teachings” (v22). Was Torah “human teaching”? No, as is widely acknowledged, these were Gnostics… who were judging the believers *for* following Torah (feasting, tasting, etc.) instead of depriving the physical body as the Gnostics taught.

      Paul states that the festivals, Sabbaths, etc. are “a shadow of things to come, δέ (de) the substance is of Christ” (v17). According to Strong’s and HELPS, δέ can mean: but, and, now, moreover, indeed now, on top of this, etc.

      Ianmajor14 wrote:
      “No, [Romans 14] is not about foods offered to idols”

      This is pure supposition. Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 are very similar passages. No evidence there to discard the Law.

      After all:

      Romans 3:31 NKJV
      Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

      Delete
  4. "He uttered various sayings, clearly first-century Jewish in origin"

    Some were not :

    http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-what-you-do-not-want-done-to-yourself-do-not-do-to-others-confucius-41010.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said "some may have been uttered by other Pharisaic teachers at the time, but were incorporated as if coming from Jesus"

      Delete
    2. I don't think that the Christians knew Confucius well enough to quote in the first or second century:)

      Delete
  5. Wow, I say this truly with a humble heart with no judgement or condemnation. But most of you clearly have misunderstood Sha'ul and Yeshua and basically Holy Scripture in general. Paul nor any of the Apostles started a new religion. If man really wants to talk "religion" well your religion is worthless just as righteous Yakov who was unfairly martyred by the Sanhedrin have said. "For a religion that is right before God is taking care of widows and orphans in distress and being unstained from the world." Clearly no contradictions to the what the Prophets were preaching who were also martyred by self-righteous religious men.

    Do you have any idea what was the curse of the Torah was? Have you really took a step back and realized what any of the Apostles were saying? You may want to read the whole Levitical system again and what was required to be in safe waters with the only Holy Righteous God. IF any man thinks he is safe with Adonai right now by his own merits is cursed and blind. Oh I hope you men and rabbi's of this generation repent and believe so to be saved.

    May the Yeshua, the Son of God, the Son of Man, humble your hearts and give you eyes to see the the truth of Scripture. It's never too late.

    Blessings to you and all of your families.

    ReplyDelete