Peter's Vision

[Guest Ken Rank]

Legalistic Replacement theologian.

First of all, it should be beneath a believer in Yehoshua to name call. That's pretty sophmoric, don't you think?

Second, if serving only God and not other gods, not stealing, taking part in His apponted days and being blessed by the rest and worship my family and myself take part in on Sabbath makes me legalistic, then I am legalistic.

Thirdly, I do not believe in replacement theology. I believe we are grafted INTO Israel,(Rom 11) that we become "fellow citizens" with them (Eph 2), but we do not replace them.

Lastly, when there was no new testament, hundreds of years before it would be compiled, Paul wrote:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

While I believe the NT is inspired, I also cannot ignore the fact that Paul was writing during a time period when ONLY the Torah and Prophets were accepted as "scripture." Therefore, Torah and Prophets are as applicable today as they were in Paul's day.

If you want to discuss why I believe Torah is applicable, I would be thrilled to. There is nothing in my life more satisfying than sharing my perspective and gleaning from anothers' perspective on scripture. But let's raise it up a notch and remember we are supposed to be a reflection of the God we serve.

Peace.

Ken

[Guest Ken Rank]

The fact that the church is not mentioned in these scriptures is not note worthy. The church is not mentioned in the OT at all. It is referrred to as a mystery in the NT, one that was revealed in the fullness of times.

Actually Kross, with respect, the "church" is mentioned in the Tanach (OT) repeatedly. We translate the word ekklēsia as "church," a translation that obviously stems from the early Roman influences on the faith. By the time of the Protestent movement, "church" was just accepted as who we are. But that isn't what ekklēsia means. Simply, it means to call out, come out, a gathering or assembly. "The called out ones" can be replaced anytime scripture uses ekklēsia in regards to an individual as well as a small group. When speaking of the whole body of Messiah, "assembly" or "congregation" better fits ekklēsia.

Now, I said "the church" is mentioned in the OT. Of course, I am saying that ekklēsia is used in the OT and is not unique to the NT. In the LXX (Septuigent) when God calls His people (the Israelites) before Mt. Sinai, the LXX uses the word ekklēsia to describe the gathering before the mount. Since that book of the LXX was written 300 years before Messiah came on the scene, the idea of a "church" did not cross their Hebrew minds.

It would be hard to take "all of Iarael" to mean just those who believe in Messiah if you look at how meticulously Paul separates the Christians and the nation of Israel in this writing.

"All of Israel" or the Whole House of Israel is made up of the 12 tribes and the strangers who came out of Egypt with them. (Those strangers by the way are a shadow of those who are not of Israel by blood but still become a member of the Household of God through faith in Yehoshua) But then we get into an area Kross that is not taught in most churches and might seem a little confusing at first. After Soloman the nation of Israel divided into two Kingdoms. The Southern Kingdom called Judah or Judea was made up of Judah, Benjamin, and about half of Levi. The other 9 and a half tribes made up the Northern Kingdom called Israel. (check out some two kingdom maps through google) Now... here is where is gets a little confusing, but I think you will enjoy this.

Paul said he was a JEW but also said he was of the tribe of BENJAMIN. That's because the modern short from of the word Judah is Jew, and any who through blood are of Benjamin or Judah are Jews. They are part of the Whole House of Israel, but they are Jews....members of the Southern Kingdom, Judah. The rest of the tribes cannot say they are Jews and are NEVER refered to in scripture as Jews. They are simply Israel, and, they are still scattered in the nations. This is why Yehoshua said "I did not come BUT for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." The Jews never lost their identity, they came home, they were not lost in THAT sense. Yes, they will, at the appointed time, come to see Yehoshua for who and what he is and will accept him as the Messiah they long for, but they never lost their identity. The Northern Kingdom, some 5-10 MILLION, were scattered into the nations and GIVEN UP to idols. They no longer know their identity (see Ezk 37) and are still in the nations. (ethnos by the way, can mean nations probably more times than it means gentiles)

So, we who come in faith MAY be descendents of the Lost Sheep, 62 generations later, the numbers are great. But even if we are not, we are grafted into Israel through faith, we become fellow citizens with them, and at Messiah's return we will be joined with Judah and there will be one Kingdom never again to be divided. (again, Ezk. 37)

When we read the parable of the wheat and tares in Matt. 13, a set of verses I often use to show I don't want to be first in case of rapture, this is speaking about the scattering into the nations and the harvesting of, the Northern Kingdom.

Peace.

Ken

Edited November 3, 2009 by Ken Rank

[Guest Ken Rank]

Luke 6:1-11 One sabbath while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. But some of the Pharisees said, "Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" Jesus answered, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?" Then he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him. Even though he knew what they were thinking, he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come and stand here." He got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?" After looking around at all of them, he said to him, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was restored. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

There is NO Torah command to not pick and eat in there. What it says is you can't pick and sell or pick and store to sell. But picking and eating is permissible in Torah. Those who came against him used "man made additions to God's laws" to justify their stand against his actions. As you probably know, there are ONLY 7 commands pertaining to Sabbath in Torah, but rabbinic Judaism has 39 CATEGORIES of laws and 4000 laws total relating to Sabbath. Now THAT is a burden no man can carry! Healing is not permitted on Sabbath. Simply, it is a day of rest. But if a healing is needed, if a goat falls into a ditch... if your livestock need FOOD... this is specifically allowed in Torah.

So let's not have any more of this nonsense about how we can advance the return of Jesus by rebuilding the temple and re-instituting the sacrificial system. All you will accomplish is to flood the market with lamb chops.

I don't remember stating we can advance the coming of Yehoshua by building anything. There is prophecy in Ezekiel and other prophets that declare sacrifices will continue, and while I spent my early Christian life ignoring them because I did not understand them, they exist and they are yet to be fullfilled. I rather think they will be done looking back at what Yehoshua has done seeing they always pointed forward to him. It isn't an angry God anyone will be trying to appease, this is YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob we are talking about. The God of love and grace!

Please refrain from calling another's belief nonsense. You should be a reflection of the God you serve, not the carnal emotional desire to one up another! You are welcome to draw your own conclusions, this is simply discussion. Rufus, the Christian world needs to wake up to something. We are called holy by God. Whether we think we are, whether we believer we are worthy to be called holy, no matter. God said we are so we are. And when we cause strife, contend with one another over petty differences, create 20,000 denominations and sects of the "one body of Messiah," we "profane the holy." When we name call and polarize, when we alienate others or shame them into a belief structure, we profane the holy. If you want to discuss whether or not Torah is applicable to today, I would be thrilled to. But if we are going to name call and degrade, I want no part of it. It isn't a reflection of God, it's a reflection of the adversary!

Peace.

Ken

[anitarose]

I am not Jewish, I am a Christian. However, you will (respectfully speaking) not find anyplace in the NT where Yehoshua worked on Shabbat...

Do you notice the prophecy (repeated from Jeremiah 31:31-34) in chapter 8 which tells us that the "new covenant" is made with the House of Judah (Jews) and the House of Israel (scattered northern Kingdom) and it does not mention gentiles or "the church?"

Legalistic Replacement theologian.

Why Neb. I'm really surprised at you. You are not the type to call someone a name that they are not.

For your information, I believe the same as Ken. Surprised now? I attend a Messianic Jewish congregation that teaches the same things Ken is sharing. I follow the Torah as well. By the way, if you were to look the word "Torah" up, would you know what means? It doesn't mean LAW. It means "teachings and instructions---a manual".

If you look throughout the OT, you would see that there's teachings for 2 different groupings of people. 2 Kings deals with the split of Israel--the northern and southern kingdoms. It's well known that the name "Ephraim" means doubly fruitful, but did you know it also meant NATIONS?

Research it yourself. Neb. You're a good friend, and I hate to see good friends do things that make themselves look silly.

a.

[nebula]

Second, if serving only God and not other gods, not stealing, taking part in His apponted days and being blessed by the rest and worship my family and myself take part in on Sabbath makes me legalistic, then I am legalistic.

Odd, it sounded to me like you were dissing the Torah in the post I was responding to. So now I'm confused.

But where I saw you as legalistic and Replacement was the use of "Yehoshua". People who are caught up in calling Jesus "Joshua" in Hebrew tend to diss the Messianic community (who call Him Yeshua) and are legalistic in "the sacred name."

[nebula]

I am not Jewish, I am a Christian. However, you will (respectfully speaking) not find anyplace in the NT where Yehoshua worked on Shabbat...

Do you notice the prophecy (repeated from Jeremiah 31:31-34) in chapter 8 which tells us that the "new covenant" is made with the House of Judah (Jews) and the House of Israel (scattered northern Kingdom) and it does not mention gentiles or "the church?"

Legalistic Replacement theologian.

Why Neb. I'm really surprised at you. You are not the type to call someone a name that they are not.

For your information, I believe the same as Ken. Surprised now? I attend a Messianic Jewish congregation that teaches the same things Ken is sharing. I follow the Torah as well. By the way, if you were to look the word "Torah" up, would you know what means? It doesn't mean LAW. It means "teachings and instructions---a manual".

If you look throughout the OT, you would see that there's teachings for 2 different groupings of people. 2 Kings deals with the split of Israel--the northern and southern kingdoms. It's well known that the name "Ephraim" means doubly fruitful, but did you know it also meant NATIONS?

Research it yourself. Neb. You're a good friend, and I hate to see good friends do things that make themselves look silly.

a.

The way he was expressing himself didn't come across the way that you are describing.

[Guest yod]

I am not Jewish, I am a Christian. However, you will (respectfully speaking) not find anyplace in the NT where Yehoshua worked on Shabbat...

Do you notice the prophecy (repeated from Jeremiah 31:31-34) in chapter 8 which tells us that the "new covenant" is made with the House of Judah (Jews) and the House of Israel (scattered northern Kingdom) and it does not mention gentiles or "the church?"

Legalistic Replacement theologian.

Why Neb. I'm really surprised at you. You are not the type to call someone a name that they are not.

For your information, I believe the same as Ken. Surprised now? I attend a Messianic Jewish congregation that teaches the same things Ken is sharing. I follow the Torah as well. By the way, if you were to look the word "Torah" up, would you know what means? It doesn't mean LAW. It means "teachings and instructions---a manual".

If you look throughout the OT, you would see that there's teachings for 2 different groupings of people. 2 Kings deals with the split of Israel--the northern and southern kingdoms. It's well known that the name "Ephraim" means doubly fruitful, but did you know it also meant NATIONS?

Research it yourself. Neb. You're a good friend, and I hate to see good friends do things that make themselves look silly.

a.

The way he was expressing himself didn't come across the way that you are describing.

that sounds more like 2-house than replacement theology though they both lead to the same place. Identity theft.

[Guest Ken Rank]

Second, if serving only God and not other gods, not stealing, taking part in His apponted days and being blessed by the rest and worship my family and myself take part in on Sabbath makes me legalistic, then I am legalistic.

Odd, it sounded to me like you were dissing the Torah in the post I was responding to. So now I'm confused.

But where I saw you as legalistic and Replacement was the use of "Yehoshua". People who are caught up in calling Jesus "Joshua" in Hebrew tend to diss the Messianic community (who call Him Yeshua) and are legalistic in "the sacred name."

I am glad that there was a misunderstanding. As for being legalistic, well Nebula, I use Yehoshua (Yeshua, Yahushua, Y'shua) because there was not a letter J until 500 years ago, no J with a hard sound like we hear today until 200 years ago, and no J at all in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. So in my view, the name of Messiah could not have been Jesus. With that said do NOT think I am "dissing" anyone who uses Jesus, I am not. There is much more to being "in the name" or using his "name" than what words proceed out of our mouths. If a person calls on Jesus with a pure heart, they will not be heard any louder or lower than one who calls on Yehoshua (or whatever variation one prefers) with a pure heart.

Nebula, it would have been legalistic of me if I inisisted YOU use Yehoshua, or whatever variation I was pushing. I am not pushing though, I use what I use, you use whatever you feel led to use, and that's the end of it as far as I am concerned. Incidentally, a heretic in the first century is not what a heretic became in the 4th. From the 4th century through today, a heretic is one who believes outside of the mainstream view. And I will continue to use it that way because that is how it is understood today. But in the 1st century and before, to committ heresy was to use scripture (or a bastardized version of it) in order to control or otherwise steer a person or the public in a certain direction. Those who kept The Doctrine of the Nicolatians were heretics, they would use their own interpretation of scripture to force society to live according to their own paradigm. Yehoshua HATES that. I am not heretic, you are welcome to draw any conclusion you want.

Peace.

Ken

[Guest Ken Rank]

that sounds more like 2-house than replacement theology though they both lead to the same place. Identity theft.

No, there is a beauty in it and affirmation (witnesses) to end time events we miss. Mind if I share it?

First, there is no doubt there is two houses. Jeremiah 31:31-34/ Hebrews 8 can't be any clearer. Ezekiel 37 and the actual events in Kings which inspired the prophecies can't be any clearer... Israel divided into two houses or Kingdoms. And, a day "will come" when the two houses are joined never again to be divided. This much Yod is pretty clear in scripture, even the Jews understand this reality. (We even had the ex-Mayor of Shiloh, Israel come to our congregation this past Friday and spoke on the scattered Northern Kingdom who is still in dispersion) And, we also know that Israel has not been forsaken, prophecy from many prophetic books bears this out.

The only interpretive question is, who are we? Are we just gentile dogs or do we become part of the one family of God? Who is the Olive Tree in Romans 11 we are graffed into? Was God ever called an Olive Tree or has that always been a symbol of the people of God, Israel? Is it literal in Ephesians 2, or metaphoric, when it is said we "were" gentiles in the flesh, "had" no hope, "didn't" know God, "were not" partakers of the covenants of promise, and "were" aliens (non-citizens) of the Commonwealth of Israel? If literal and these are all past tense (and they are), then what of the present tense statements which follow? That "now" through the blood of Messiah we "have" hope, "know" God, "are" partakers of the covenants of promise, and "are" fellow citizens with the saints and members of the Household of God?

God does not have two brides, he has one, Israel. That is what propechy states, and there is nothing in the NT that trumps that. We define ekklēsia as church because that is how it has been done since the 3rd and 4th centuries, but that word simply means to be called out, to assemble, a congregation. It is not unique to the NT as we see it in Exodus (in the LXX, Greek OT written 300 years before Messiah by Jews) when God "calls his people" to the base of Mt. Sinai. So whether we be Jews or Greeks, the Southern Kingdom, the Northern Kingdom... or just like the "strangers" which came out of Egypt with the Israelites, we will be joined as one house, one family, one bride... of Messiah at his return.

So where is the beauty in it? In Torah.... because Torah states that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a fact. And, it is better when these witnesses conflict... not on the story, but in telling the same story from two different perspectives. Here they are....

One path has Judah, veiled to Torah and Messiah right now (Romans 11:25 and the "in part" portion is confirmed that there are some Jews who believe) yet on the appointed path which is headed toward the one Kingdom of God. Yes, the veil will be removed at the appointed time, but they testify of the Kingdom of God.

Another path is us.... members of the Northern Kingdom? Grafted in? No matter, our path also veiled to Torah to some degree, is headed toward the Kingdom of God through Messiah and is a second witness of that reality.

Two different witnesses, two conflicting sometimes hostile to each other witnesses, both testifying of the reality of the ONE Kingdom of God and headed on parallel but distinct paths which will join together at the coming of Messiah.

If you don't see all of this this way, that's fine Yod. We are united as brothers and sisters through Yehoshua, who he was, what he did... where he is now and what he will be doing one day maybe soon. The rest is details not worth dividing over. I am confident there will be plenty of head smacking and "Doh!" when we all learn how far off on many things we all are.

Peace.

Ken

[nebula]

The way he was expressing himself didn't come across the way that you are describing.

that sounds more like 2-house than replacement theology though they both lead to the same place. Identity theft.

You're right - I was mixing things up for some reason.