01-01-2009, 01:39 AM
Shlama Akhi Thirdwoe,
Thanks Brother Andrew, I'll look it over.
I have a question for you if I may.
AGR:
Sure, shoot!
I have heard for a number of years now that there are these Messianic Jewish groups out there and I have been somewhat curious about their modes of worship and set of core doctrines, and if they would differ greatly from protestant Christian groups held core doctrines. And you seem to be up on all this.
AGR:
Well, you put this in a very interesting way, and my answer I think will almost sound similar to what I have heard Protestants and Catholics say about their differences, i.e. "of course there is only one TRUE faith...". Judaism of course, Messianic or otherwise, has had even more time to develop sects, splinter groups, etc. Two of these breakaway sects of course are known as Christianity and Islam. Within even the fairly (relatively speaking) unified Rabbinic-Orthodox mode (and even here there Lubavitch, Karaites, Hasids, etc) you have the Talmud, which is essentially one very long argument about Jewish law. It is from the Talmud we are told that "where you have two Jews, you have 3 opinions".
Having said all that, I need one further clarification. All the sects of the Messianic-Netzari faith that I am aware of are meant to be, at least superficially, separated from Christian worship and practice. Even what is essentially a Protestant outreach group, Jews for Jesus, while fairly liberal on sacred names, keeping kosher and such, neverthless has adopted litgurical practices consistent with mainline Judaism-synagogue service. Having been to a JFJ assembly myself, I found little difference between it and the Reform/Conservative synagogues I grew up with excepting of course the Messiah-NT issue.
There are no crosses in any Messianic synagogue that I am aware of. Nor are Catholic rites like communion (esp with "transubstantiation") ever done. There is no "mass" in Latin or English. And even if they hold assembly on Sunday, they don't call it Shabbat. You can, after all, pray and assemble any day of the week. Other things, like baptism, vary greatly from one community and another, but when it is done they usually call it "mikveh" or "immersion". Suffice to say even when Messianics congregation are very much in line with mainline Christianity, and these are the "old-moderns" as I call them, the JFJ's, they are determined to carve out a presence and identity that is distinctively of a Jewish flavor.
I also wonder if they are united in their doctrines, or is it like in Protestantism, where for instance some groups teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active in the body of Christ such as healing miracles, speaking in spiritual languages, prophecies, words of wisdom and knowledge and such...while others believe and teach that there are no such thing from God and that those who claim to have such gifts are either deceived by the devil.
AGR:
Here we need another clarification. If you look at Acts 15, you will see TWO early groups of Jewish believers. In effect, two kinds of "Messianic Pharisees". Yes, I said PHARISEES. It may be hard to believe, but both Y'shua and Rav Shaul were Pharisees. Y'shua was never in conflict with Pharisaic timing of feasts but only against the elevation of extra-biblical man made traditions ove Scripture. When they were going straight from Torah, he said they sat
"in Moses' seat" and told the people of Israel to follow them. Rav Shaul, for his part, calls himself "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee" IN THE PRESENT TENSE. In Rav Shaul's definition, his Pharisaism was not in conflict with being "a ringleader of the Way/Nazarenes, which YOU CALL A SECT" (Acts 24:1-14). Rav Shaul in that quote did not see his belief in Y'shua as a SECT but was responding to charges from others that it was. Therefore, his Pharisaism we will call MP #1.
With me so far?
Now, also in Acts 15, and this may stray into dangerous territory so I will try and be careful, we have MP #2. These are the ultra conservatives, whom my colleague Avi ben Mordechai called "the Kedusha (Holiness) club". These guys taught in Acts 15:1-2 that circumcision itself was salvation-specific, that in effect Gentiles had to become Jews and then Christians. Rav Shaul disagreed, but in Nazarene halacha, that disagreement deferred circumcision as opposed to negating it. Circumcision was something that needed to be understood first through Torah study, and this has widespread agreement in Nazarene circles. To anyone who has a problem with this, I will NOT argue it here as that is a violation of the rules. I am just answering the question.
In any case, these guys from MP2 split from the assembly at Jerusalem and formed their own sect, sometimes calling themselves "Nazarenes" but they are NOT. We know them today more accurately as EVYONIM (Ebionites).
In the 4th century, the Church Fathers themselves explained the differences between Evyonim (called so for their "poor" or mortal opinion on Messiah) and the MP 1, or Nazarenes as Paul was and I am. They said that the Evyonim threw out all the NT except a redacted and inferior version of Matthew in Hebrew whereas Nazarenes, "not only use the Old Testament but the (entire) NT as well". Nazarenes also have a "high Christology" that I won't get into here, but suffice to say we don't believe as the Evyonim did that Y'shua was only a man. Both Evyonim and Nazarenes though were and are into Torah observance, but in Rabbinic eyes the other beliefs made the Evyonim more acceptable to them. They therefore CURSED the Nazarenes but not the Evyonim, and issued an opinion that it was in effect more okay for a rabbi to be in an Evyonim house but totally unacceptable to be in a Nazarene's. This discussion was dated to the early 2nd century (Mas Shabbath 116a).
So, to make a long story a little shorter, I have compiled in Mari "The Thirteen Principles of the Netzari Faith" which is intended to separate out Netzarim from Evyonim belief, but like all faiths, there are always minority extremists who will disagree and say their version, like our Christian counterparts, must be THE ONE. Nevertheless, I do think a case can be made for an ORTHODOXY of the Nazarenes, which functions in much the same way as Rome did in relation to what she thought was "heterodox" (heretics, minority) among Western Christians.
This list of mine is similar to what Maimonides tried to do in his "Guide to the Perplexed" as a way to define majority Orthodox position. So, as the saying goes, the exception does not disprove the rule.
And so I guess what I am asking you really, is who would the Messianic groups line up with more closely. Or is there disagreement among them as there are among the other Christian groups out there...
AGR:
I would say the majority line up with Christianity in terms of who Y'shua was/is, born a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead. We would think of John 3:16 and Deuteronomy 6:4 as equally essential. But we would also not be in line with Christianity in terms of rituals, holidays or Trinitarian formulas. This fact led one Church Father (Epiphanus) to comment, and I am paraphrasing:
"These Nazarenes are simply Jews who believe in Messiah but they have persuaded themselves in the necessity of keeping the Old Law, and for that, they are not in line with Christians. But they use not only the Old Testament but the New as well." (I have the actual comment online somewhere.)
So to sum up, the majority Nazarene position is "yes to Messiah, no to conventional worship about Messiah."
Does that help? Remember, every rule has its exception...
Thanks Brother Andrew, I'll look it over.
I have a question for you if I may.
AGR:
Sure, shoot!
I have heard for a number of years now that there are these Messianic Jewish groups out there and I have been somewhat curious about their modes of worship and set of core doctrines, and if they would differ greatly from protestant Christian groups held core doctrines. And you seem to be up on all this.
AGR:
Well, you put this in a very interesting way, and my answer I think will almost sound similar to what I have heard Protestants and Catholics say about their differences, i.e. "of course there is only one TRUE faith...". Judaism of course, Messianic or otherwise, has had even more time to develop sects, splinter groups, etc. Two of these breakaway sects of course are known as Christianity and Islam. Within even the fairly (relatively speaking) unified Rabbinic-Orthodox mode (and even here there Lubavitch, Karaites, Hasids, etc) you have the Talmud, which is essentially one very long argument about Jewish law. It is from the Talmud we are told that "where you have two Jews, you have 3 opinions".
Having said all that, I need one further clarification. All the sects of the Messianic-Netzari faith that I am aware of are meant to be, at least superficially, separated from Christian worship and practice. Even what is essentially a Protestant outreach group, Jews for Jesus, while fairly liberal on sacred names, keeping kosher and such, neverthless has adopted litgurical practices consistent with mainline Judaism-synagogue service. Having been to a JFJ assembly myself, I found little difference between it and the Reform/Conservative synagogues I grew up with excepting of course the Messiah-NT issue.
There are no crosses in any Messianic synagogue that I am aware of. Nor are Catholic rites like communion (esp with "transubstantiation") ever done. There is no "mass" in Latin or English. And even if they hold assembly on Sunday, they don't call it Shabbat. You can, after all, pray and assemble any day of the week. Other things, like baptism, vary greatly from one community and another, but when it is done they usually call it "mikveh" or "immersion". Suffice to say even when Messianics congregation are very much in line with mainline Christianity, and these are the "old-moderns" as I call them, the JFJ's, they are determined to carve out a presence and identity that is distinctively of a Jewish flavor.
I also wonder if they are united in their doctrines, or is it like in Protestantism, where for instance some groups teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active in the body of Christ such as healing miracles, speaking in spiritual languages, prophecies, words of wisdom and knowledge and such...while others believe and teach that there are no such thing from God and that those who claim to have such gifts are either deceived by the devil.
AGR:
Here we need another clarification. If you look at Acts 15, you will see TWO early groups of Jewish believers. In effect, two kinds of "Messianic Pharisees". Yes, I said PHARISEES. It may be hard to believe, but both Y'shua and Rav Shaul were Pharisees. Y'shua was never in conflict with Pharisaic timing of feasts but only against the elevation of extra-biblical man made traditions ove Scripture. When they were going straight from Torah, he said they sat
"in Moses' seat" and told the people of Israel to follow them. Rav Shaul, for his part, calls himself "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee" IN THE PRESENT TENSE. In Rav Shaul's definition, his Pharisaism was not in conflict with being "a ringleader of the Way/Nazarenes, which YOU CALL A SECT" (Acts 24:1-14). Rav Shaul in that quote did not see his belief in Y'shua as a SECT but was responding to charges from others that it was. Therefore, his Pharisaism we will call MP #1.
With me so far?
Now, also in Acts 15, and this may stray into dangerous territory so I will try and be careful, we have MP #2. These are the ultra conservatives, whom my colleague Avi ben Mordechai called "the Kedusha (Holiness) club". These guys taught in Acts 15:1-2 that circumcision itself was salvation-specific, that in effect Gentiles had to become Jews and then Christians. Rav Shaul disagreed, but in Nazarene halacha, that disagreement deferred circumcision as opposed to negating it. Circumcision was something that needed to be understood first through Torah study, and this has widespread agreement in Nazarene circles. To anyone who has a problem with this, I will NOT argue it here as that is a violation of the rules. I am just answering the question.
In any case, these guys from MP2 split from the assembly at Jerusalem and formed their own sect, sometimes calling themselves "Nazarenes" but they are NOT. We know them today more accurately as EVYONIM (Ebionites).
In the 4th century, the Church Fathers themselves explained the differences between Evyonim (called so for their "poor" or mortal opinion on Messiah) and the MP 1, or Nazarenes as Paul was and I am. They said that the Evyonim threw out all the NT except a redacted and inferior version of Matthew in Hebrew whereas Nazarenes, "not only use the Old Testament but the (entire) NT as well". Nazarenes also have a "high Christology" that I won't get into here, but suffice to say we don't believe as the Evyonim did that Y'shua was only a man. Both Evyonim and Nazarenes though were and are into Torah observance, but in Rabbinic eyes the other beliefs made the Evyonim more acceptable to them. They therefore CURSED the Nazarenes but not the Evyonim, and issued an opinion that it was in effect more okay for a rabbi to be in an Evyonim house but totally unacceptable to be in a Nazarene's. This discussion was dated to the early 2nd century (Mas Shabbath 116a).
So, to make a long story a little shorter, I have compiled in Mari "The Thirteen Principles of the Netzari Faith" which is intended to separate out Netzarim from Evyonim belief, but like all faiths, there are always minority extremists who will disagree and say their version, like our Christian counterparts, must be THE ONE. Nevertheless, I do think a case can be made for an ORTHODOXY of the Nazarenes, which functions in much the same way as Rome did in relation to what she thought was "heterodox" (heretics, minority) among Western Christians.
This list of mine is similar to what Maimonides tried to do in his "Guide to the Perplexed" as a way to define majority Orthodox position. So, as the saying goes, the exception does not disprove the rule.
And so I guess what I am asking you really, is who would the Messianic groups line up with more closely. Or is there disagreement among them as there are among the other Christian groups out there...
AGR:
I would say the majority line up with Christianity in terms of who Y'shua was/is, born a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead. We would think of John 3:16 and Deuteronomy 6:4 as equally essential. But we would also not be in line with Christianity in terms of rituals, holidays or Trinitarian formulas. This fact led one Church Father (Epiphanus) to comment, and I am paraphrasing:
"These Nazarenes are simply Jews who believe in Messiah but they have persuaded themselves in the necessity of keeping the Old Law, and for that, they are not in line with Christians. But they use not only the Old Testament but the New as well." (I have the actual comment online somewhere.)
So to sum up, the majority Nazarene position is "yes to Messiah, no to conventional worship about Messiah."
Does that help? Remember, every rule has its exception...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth