 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
JP – I just wanted to thank you for that teaching. Wow! It really can make a huge difference when you actually "know" Hebrew vs. opening a dictionary and expecting to conclude all that is necessary in every semantic. While we need to be good students (kudos V.H.), this seems to be another supporting example of Oral Torah and it's communication within the Jewish community. Again, it seems wiser to me to learn Hebrew and it's interpretation from Hillel or Ramb'm vs. Jerome and/or the Hebrew Christians. It seems we have been insulting the keeper of the Oracles of HaSheim for millennia in favor of our "witness" to the goyim and their interpretations. I actually had a Messianic leader of a fairly large group tell me he didn't want to keep his beard kashrut (observe the Mitzvot or Torah) because it would be a stumbling block to the gentiles he ministers to. What about Isra'el? If one would actually transgress Torah in order to win gentiles into their further pursuit of transgressing Torah, then how much more should one actually KEEP Torah, to win apostate Jews and gentiles alike in further pursuit of KEEPING TORAH! Surely we can keep Torah for our brethren?? In the writings of Romans…
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – You’ve made some excellent points, but – and I’m sure you’d agree – the primary reason to keep Tor•âhꞋ is to please é‑‑ä.
JP – In the writings of Romans…
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – Your reasoning is good. Since the original Netzarim accepted only Ta•na"khꞋ and Hebrew Matityahu, however, I don’t think it’s advisable to admit Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) citations. Christians could then, justifiably, expect counter citations from the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), which they would nominate, as “only fair.” The forum could then degenerate into Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) citations versus Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) citations… none of which have any relevancy to the Netzarim, Tor•âhꞋ or Jewish community.
Rather, we can speak of Christian doctrines in generalities without giving any impression of recognizing Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) authority. Citing the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), at the very least, would surely give some the wrong impression. You can see an alternative way of handling this in the replacement insertion I’ve used which follows.
[Christian doctrine suggests that] if one is doing something (specifically eating non-ka•shᵊr•utꞋ) that causes the conscience of another to be disteressed and your action causes your "weaker" brother to stumble, then you should immediately refrain from your action "For the sake of the weaker brother." Now this is a central teaching in Xtianity for justifying "freedom in
Christ" and telling others not to "judge you" for eating "food sacrificed to idols." This is of course, even a perversion of their own writings. The principle is not to assert your privileges as you have come to know them, but to abstain for the sake of your brother. I haven't ever seen a Xtian abstain from anything for the sake of Shalom with their brethren.
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – The Messianic leader you mentioned above would argue that he abstains from a beard and from keeping Tor•âhꞋ for the sake of his brethren.
Logical argument can never stand against irrational argument.
Accepting any Christian premise as valid condemns one to a hopelessly endless circle of irrational Christian premises, just as quoting the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) lends itself to the misunderstanding that we accept it as valid and invites counter citations from the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).
The only logical approach is to find the beginning point of irrationality (proto-Christians of circa 64-135 C.E. and Christians of post-135 C.E.) and refuse to admit any irrational premise whatsoever into the equation.
JP – … How many Xtians abstain from ham sandwiches for the sake of their Jewish brethren, let alone Observe Torah? Doesn't this seem to be exactly what the writer is teaching in principle, Observe Torah if not for your sake for the sake of Isra'el!! How many even have Jewish brethren is probably a better question here!?
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – Typically somewhere between rare and none. One of the most frequent mistakes I encounter is for Christians to presume to call us brothers. Jews and Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ geir•imꞋ (that means as formally recognized by our Beit Din) are our brothers. No one else.
However, it’s a most grave error to think that early Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ could have taught that observance of Tor•âhꞋ should be for any reason other than love for, and consequent obedience to, é‑‑ä. Observance of Tor•âhꞋ is to please é‑‑ä, not any man (even Israel).
JP – I dunno if this is too strong, but a man who would write the things about the Jewish people the way Jerome or even Martin Luther did, the man who would malign, deveive, lashon hara, and execute the Jewish people. This man we should now go to for correct interpretation and moreso application of Torah? This man who's own doctrine teaches "love your enemy" and then justifies his murder of Jewish women and children and men by concluding that they aren't even humans and therefore need not be loved as normal "enemies." These are the ones who we have our tradition from, and yet we find it soo hard to reject this and turn to Judaism for the answers. I think the idolatry propagated by these men is so intense it doesn't feel like it…it's soo deceiving…because of our huge distance from Torah…it seems "right in our own eyes." Makes sense, to know a fake, study the original, not the counterfeit.
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – Good point! Of course, Christians are not only ignorant of that history, they are existentially bound not to learn it. So they simply deny it and remain, in their own eyes, nice-nice.
JP – Finally, recently in the U.S. there has been much discussion about character of individuals in light of President Clintons' illicit sexual affairs. The resounding answer from this country was "if the money keeps rollin' in, then who cares who the man commits adultry with!" Should we really be surprised that the teachings we follow in the Xtian and Messianic movements that are from men of equal or lesser character, produce idolatry? Just look at Mr. Clinton - "we (citizenry) care nothing of your sin, we only care of what's in it for us, never mind the Torah of the living haSheim, the dollar of the U.S. is far more valuable!" Same holds true in Xtianity and Messianism – "we ("believers") care nothing of the sin of these men (pagan, murderous "church fathers), never mind the Torah of the living haSheim, the Torah of Jerome, Augistine, Luther, which say I can sin and transgress Torah as a lifestyle and still inherit the kingdom of God, as long as I pay tribute to Jesus/Zeus/Isis."
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – There’s no question that Christians entirely lack moral standards because everyone can argue that they can do what they want “knowing Christ will forgive me.” There is no moral standard in Christianity which isn’t subject to that “exemption.”
It’s also true that, as a principally Christian nation, the U.S. reflects this lack of moral integrity in no small measure. The U.S. is increasingly being seen by the rest of the world as a paradise of hedonism; and, consequently, emulated as such. Hence the collision with fundamentalist religions of all types which emphasize moral values.
On the other hand, like every human being, despite my best efforts I sometimes transgress Tor•âhꞋ too. Don’t confuse the message with the messenger. If I fall into some horrendous transgression do Tor•âhꞋ Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ then become objectionable as a result of my personal failure? Certainly not! I think Bill Clinton should have been convicted – not because of his personal immorality (which has nothing directly to do with the duties of the office to which we elected him) but because of his perjury in lying to the American people (as well as to Congress) which was a responsibility of his office. It would be nicer to have a moral president, but until we incorporate morality into his job description – in which case perhaps no mortal could do the job – we cannot require it.
JP – I have a question, would you trust a man who has blood dripping from his sword, Jewish blood, who says he is the "Vicor of Isra'el"? It seems to contradict terms! In history it also contradicts the life of Yaakov, who never raised even his hand, let alone a sword against Isra'el; and Yaakov was radical Shomeir-Torah!
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu – Not only would the pope deny that he (or any previous pope) has any blood dripping from his sword, Jewish or otherwise, today’s pope would enjoy many Jewish defenders, with short memories, against that charge for several improvements he has introduced in Catholic-Jewish relations. It’s essential to avoid hyperbole and to remember the carrot as well as the stick. Historically, previous popes have Jewish blood on their hands. One of the greatest criticisms of today’s pope is his insistence on denying that fact, even to the extent of beatifying his predecessor who sympathized, and was guilty of some complicity, with the Nazis in the Holocaust.
But the principle reason Jews reject the pope is because he represents a counterfeit and idolatrous messiah.
 |
|
 |