Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Blessings all! So here's my first post to the forums <!-- s  --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt=" " title="Smile" /><!-- s -->:
I have authored an article regarding Kosher laws and what the Apostolic Writings say about it. You can read it here. Please tell me what you think <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt=" " title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I'm always willing to make modifications or clarifications if the need arises.
Posts: 547
Threads: 67
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Aaron S Wrote:Blessings all! So here's my first post to the forums <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->:
I have authored an article regarding Kosher laws and what the Apostolic Writings say about it. You can read it here. Please tell me what you think <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Shlama akhi,
well done. concise and easy to follow. the "non-food" aspect is one i've used as well in trying to explain to people that just because it is alive and you can eat it doesn't mean it is considered food...cause i've got one heckuva recipe for poison ivy and briar salad! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Shlama Khulkon:
Kashrut is good but not binding upon the Christian whether Jew or Gentile, for we are one Body in Meshikha. It is important to note that YHVH Elohim directed Noakh that everything that moves shall be food for the human race. (Genesis 9:1-4). I understand that Shimon Kepha's vision included many creatures in a large blanket held by four corners. This passage makes a parallel between the treatment of Gentiles by Jewish brethren rather than kashrut persay but the two are linked in the vision. (Acts 10:9-17). It is Israel that was given kashrut within the bonds of Torah, to make them a "separate people". Meshikha was born "under the LAW" and observed all of Torah, including kashrut laws. However, the Apostle Paul, James and Shimon Kepha were in agreement with the Rukha d'Kadusha to release Gentiles from the burdens of Torah including circumcision and most of kashrut. In Acts 15:19-21. the Apostles make a clear distinction so that Gentiles will not grossly offend their Jewish brethren.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Posts: 547
Threads: 67
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama Khulkon:
Kashrut is good but not binding upon the Christian whether Jew or Gentile, for we are one Body in Meshikha. It is important to note that YHVH Elohim directed Noakh that everything that moves shall be food for the human race. (Genesis 9:1-4). I understand that Shimon Kepha's vision included many creatures in a large blanket held by four corners. This passage makes a parallel between the treatment of Gentiles by Jewish brethren rather than kashrut persay but the two are linked in the vision. (Acts 10:9-17). It is Israel that was given kashrut within the bonds of Torah, to make them a "separate people". Meshikha was born "under the LAW" and observed all of Torah, including kashrut laws. However, the Apostle Paul, James and Shimon Kepha were in agreement with the Rukha d'Kadusha to release Gentiles from the burdens of Torah including circumcision and most of kashrut. In Acts 15:19-21. the Apostles make a clear distinction so that Gentiles will not grossly offend their Jewish brethren.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama akhi Stephen,
the four-cornered sheet with the creeping animals in it, which Keepha understood to be unclean, and then later realized symbolized the Gentile peoples -- the link i see is that in multiple books of the T"NK, Gentile nations are symbolically represented by unclean animals, and for Keepha to be told to "eat" them, means obviously to "accept" those from the nations that are being called by the Father. although i am sure that there are surely many very applicable ways to symbolically approach that particular text.
as for Acts 15, i'm of a different persuasion, obviously. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt=" " title="Smile" /><!-- s --> i don't think it was releasing them from the burdens of the Torah, but opening up the essentials in order to fellowship. remember how the P'reeyshe' brought the whole thing up (v. 1 & 5) with demanding they must be circumcised or else they aren't even saved? i think the Peshitta does well to show that the apostles were speaking directly against that particular false doctrine by their ruling, when Peter makes the clever word-play with P'rash in verse 9. that sect had lain upon the peoples a burden that the Father never gave - since people had always been allowed to worship Him w/o the demanding of circumcision. i personally believe the best route of explanation lay in that context, and not an abrogation of the entire Instruction. of course, that is just my opinion - worth all of two shekels - hopefully!
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Burning one Wrote:as for Acts 15, i'm of a different persuasion, obviously. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> i don't think it was releasing them from the burdens of the Torah, but opening up the essentials in order to fellowship. remember how the P'reeyshe' brought the whole thing up (v. 1 & 5) with demanding they must be circumcised or else they aren't even saved? i think the Peshitta does well to show that the apostles were speaking directly against that particular false doctrine by their ruling, when Peter makes the clever word-play with P'rash in verse 9. that sect had lain upon the peoples a burden that the Father never gave - since people had always been allowed to worship Him w/o the demanding of circumcision. i personally believe the best route of explanation lay in that context, and not an abrogation of the entire Instruction. of course, that is just my opinion - worth all of two shekels - hopefully!
Right... rather than dictating a blacklisting of commands for the new believers, it was a whitelist for commands permitting entry into the eidta. The baptism requirement, at the least, for entry as members of some Christian sects today is comparable to the situation of Acts 15. It was Elohim's perfect Torah being corrupted into a religious formula: To be one of us you have to do a, b, and c. Acts 15 abolishes the hoops that 'converts' were required to jumping through. It puts in place a few tips to hold back the blatant pagan customs of the new believers so as not to offend the Jews of the eidta.
Posts: 376
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
Posts: 376
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
Ben, I have one word for you: Research. You should try it some time.
Posts: 376
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
Ben Masada Wrote:Dawid Wrote:Ben, I have one word for you: Research. You should try it some time. ------------------
The NT has given me enough of that.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
The New Testament is very poorly researched, like all religious texts of its day including the Apocrypha and Mishnah.
Posts: 23
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Has anyone ever brought up 1 Peter?
1Peter 1:16 Because it is written: Be ye holy, even as I am holy.
There is only one book that I've found that phrase in. It only appears in Leviticus.
The first time is in Ch 11 after the Kosher laws, and the last is in Ch 20 after a command to keep Kosher.
This is the same Kefa who said that people twist Paul's letters, letters which the western Churches use as the foundation of their halakha.
I don't think that either one was against Torah.
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Thank you for your insight noordos....I shall add this information into the article regarding 1Peter.
Blessings
Posts: 376
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the Christian preconditional attitude, but if you mean to refer to the assumption a priori that salvation is only through faith in Jesus, then I would agree that this is essentially whence all of Paul's theology stems. This is part of why he is extremely inconsistent in his views on the Law, because he does not proceed from an overall view of how things work so much as from this one single point.
Where I disagree with you is in saying that he is antinomian, and in suggesting that he is heterodox.
The more I research, the more I agree with Dr. Sanders in his position that Paul appeals strictly to grace through faith for salvation, but appeals to law for morality. This, I think, is shaped by his goal, which is one of conversion, not so much of developing his converts, which he mostly leaves to others.
We should not accept one view to the exclusion of another, rather, we should treat them as Judaism has traditionally treated the Mishnah. When asked which is true, we should reply, "both this and that are true."
Posts: 23
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Aaron,
Today during my lunch I was reading through Matthew and noticed something that I had never considered.
Matthew
7:9 Or whom among you fathers if his son asks of him for bread,
why would you hold out to him a rock?
10 And if he asks a fish of him,
why would you hold out to him a snake?
and Luke 11 also, where he adds:
11:12 And if he asks an egg of him,
would he hand a scorpion to him?
Our Master starts off his teaching contrasting food with non-food. From there he contrasts food with animals that are not food according to Kashrut.
I know a few people that will eat a snake, but apparently Yeshua Meshikha thought differently.
Posts: 547
Threads: 67
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Shlama,
never thought to look at the passage in such a light, but that is very intriguing. it is similar in thought to Paul's passage in Timothy about food.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Posts: 152
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Hi Aaron, had trouble trying to read your article today in Australia,friday 04/06/2010, is it still on the net?
I suppose I can, will try again later.
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
I've updated the link on the first post
|
