Who is this Jewish Messiah?

[Zach]

58 minutes ago, SisterActs2 said:

Hi Zach

Back after a day to find out what has transpired.  I thank you sincerely for explaining things to me.  With all due respect, and I give you 10/10 for persistence when clearly all replies disagree with you, I have to let you know that I, too am leaving this discussion.  My brother, Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.".  A verse you probably know well - John 14:6.  For me, Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  They are 3 persons with the same plan; they just perform different functions and they all agree.  I will continue to pray to the Father through Jesus the Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit.  God bless, my brother.  We all respect you and the points you are trying to make, but reserve the right to disagree with you, in love.  I can't say it better than Shiloh, who has patiently tried to help.  Hope to talk to you again. Hugs.

 

Thank You for your kind response. I'm not here to judge others, only to discuss my beliefs and be tested by others. I don't think there will be a doctrinal entrance exam to pass before being admitted into heaven. In summary; I can conclusively prove Yeshua taught and observed both Written and Oral Torahs. Therefore if I claim to "follow" him, it leaves but one choice.

Have a HAPPY NEW YEAR!

(Here's a present New Years present for being so kind: Google Sept 23 2017 Revelation 12:1)

Shalom!

[heyvavhey]

On 1/1/2017 at 4:06 AM, shiloh357 said:

 

But it's really simple. Israel was (and indeed is today) "torah observant" by the standard you're using. They "observed" the Feasts, Oral Torah, etc..

Yet many (if not most) of their religious leaders were jealous of His authority to negatively comment on their halacha, and they wanted the King of Glory crucified. 

They were definitely at odds over the implementation of the torah. When He said "Keep MY commandments", He was making a distinction between what He was teaching and what was being taught elsewhere in the torah-observant nation. 

Do you not know that? Now it's up to you to figure out the difference. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by heyvavhey

[Bill16652]

The truth is that Jesus had to be Jewish to have the linage he nhad and it is a linage that was necessary for it showed Him as being a priest and a king according to His linage which is what He is now as well.  Yes He became the svior of the worlsd but He was first sent to Israel, when He was rejected then it spread out to the gentiles.  What many overlook is that if He had been accepted by the Jewish people then the millenial would have began right then.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, Zach said:

Then we Still disagree, this is the position one MUST take on Matthew 5:17 if they want it to agree with a Gentilized Paul.

Btw, Jewish thought was/is when Messiah comes he will teach (fulfill) the Torah correctly. 

It has nothing to do with Paul.  The word for "fulfilled" used by Jesus means "to make full."   The point Jesus was making was that he had not come to destroy the law, but to do the opposite.  "fulfill" and "destroy" are juxtaposed as opposites.  The word "fulfill"  in the Greek when used in this context of Matt. 5:17 means exactly what I said.  It means that Jesus came to fill up its meaning.  So that agrees with the idea that Jesus would bring or teach the correct meaning of the Torah. 

So, to be truthful, you are not correctly relating Jewish thought.  My position reflect Messianic Rabbinic thought.  You should read, Rabbi John Fischer's paper on Yeshua and the Torah.

 

[Zach]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

in this context of Matt. 5:17 means exactly what I said.  It means that Jesus came to fill up its meaning.  So that agrees with the idea that Jesus would bring or teach the correct meaning of the Torah. 

I'm confused, this ^^^ is your counter reply to my statement restated below vvv ???

"Btw, Jewish thought was/is when Messiah comes he will teach (fulfill) the Torah correctly."

Then you go on to say "So, to be truthful, you are not correctly relating Jewish thought."

So where do YOU think our misunderstanding is?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Zach said:

I'm confused, this ^^^ is your counter reply to my statement restated below vvv ???

"Btw, Jewish thought was/is when Messiah comes he will teach (fulfill) the Torah correctly."

Then you go on to say "So, to be truthful, you are not correctly relating Jewish thought."

So where do YOU think our misunderstanding is?

 

To "fulfill" or,"fill up" in that context means to "fill up the meaning" or as Rabbi John Fischer excellently puts it, "bring to fullest expression."

[Zach]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

To "fulfill" or,"fill up" in that context means to "fill up the meaning" or as Rabbi John Fischer excellently puts it, "bring to fullest expression."

However excellent it is, it is still ambiguous enough that I can't put a finger on your meaning. Therefore perhaps we should move to the immediate context?

Matthew 5:19
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Regardless 'How' Messiah fulfilled, the context indicates we STILL have a personal responsibility to 'keep and teach' Torah. 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Zach said:

However excellent it is, it is still ambiguous enough that I can't put a finger on your meaning. Therefore perhaps we should move to the immediate context?

Matthew 5:19
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Regardless 'How' Messiah fulfilled, the context indicates we STILL have a personal responsibility to 'keep and teach' Torah. 

 

 

But who was the audience?  The Audience was not born again Christians.  The audience was comprised of Jesus' Jewish disciples.   Jesus was affirming his commitment to God's Torah.

That modern Christians are not obligated to live as Jews does not mean that we are teaching others to violate God's commandments.   We are obligated to God's ethical/moral commandments, but we are not obligated to live as Torah observant Jews.   I have no problem with Jewish believers living a Torah observant life, staying kosher, keeping the Sabbath day, etc.   If that is the way God is leading them, that is surely fine with me.

But you have no right, scripturally, to argue that Gentile Christians are obligated by God to live as Jews.  That really runs counter to what the New Testament teaches about God making one new man from both Jew and Gentile.  If God expects Gentiles to morph into being Jews, then why bother with "one new man."  The beauty of the Gospel, which was a mystery in the first century, was that uncircumcised Gentiles could enter the Kingdom of God, and be full participants in the covenants through saving faith in the Jewish Messiah without becoming Jews.   Gentiles living as Gentiles, enjoying and participating equally in the blessings of Israel, alongside Israel was revolutionary in those days.

Just because we don't believe we are obligated to live as Jews doesn't mean we believe that the Torah was abrogated or done away with.   I am sure you will find some people who do believe that, but most of us don't. 

[Zach]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But who was the audience?  The Audience was not born again Christians.  The audience was comprised of Jesus' Jewish disciples.   Jesus was affirming his commitment to God's Torah.

That modern Christians are not obligated to live as Jews does not mean that we are teaching others to violate God's commandments.   We are obligated to God's ethical/moral commandments, but we are not obligated to live as Torah observant Jews.   I have no problem with Jewish believers living a Torah observant life, staying kosher, keeping the Sabbath day, etc.   If that is the way God is leading them, that is surely fine with me.

But you have no right, scripturally, to argue that Gentile Christians are obligated by God to live as Jews.  That really runs counter to what the New Testament teaches about God making one new man from both Jew and Gentile.  If God expects Gentiles to morph into being Jews, then why bother with "one new man."  The beauty of the Gospel, which was a mystery in the first century, was that uncircumcised Gentiles could enter the Kingdom of God, and be full participants in the covenants through saving faith in the Jewish Messiah without becoming Jews.   Gentiles living as Gentiles, enjoying and participating equally in the blessings of Israel, alongside Israel was revolutionary in those days.

Just because we don't believe we are obligated to live as Jews doesn't mean we believe that the Torah was abrogated or done away with.   I am sure you will find some people who do believe that, but most of us don't. 

How is it you'd expect "one new man" when half observe Torah and half break Torah? Messiah clearly said; 'who annuls  the "least" commandments will be "least" in the Kingdom. If they are the "least"  in the Kingdom, where does that leave those who teach admittance yet no obligation to keep any but the ethical/moral parts of Torah? 

I believe your position is a 'foundational' misunderstanding. Simply put: Torah has not changed, we were lost and without God's instructions for salvation. God anointed a completed Tzaddik to appropriate atonement and bring us back to God's instructions for salvation. 

You may be saved out of Egypt, but if you think you're not obligated to follow God's instructions you'll die in the desert as those who refused God's instructions to enter and conquer the promised land.

Do you believe for one second a person could stand east of the Jordon river proclaiming their Faith yet never crossing and God would count it to them as righteousness? 

[Guest shiloh357]

16 minutes ago, Zach said:

How is it you'd expect "one new man" when half observe Torah and half break Torah? Messiah clearly said; 'who annuls  the "least" commandments will be "least" in the Kingdom. If they are the "least"  in the Kingdom, where does that leave those who teach admittance yet no obligation to keep any but the ethical/moral parts of Torah? 

We are not annulling the Torah by not observing commandments that don't apply to us, in the first place.   I am not required by Jesus to keep Kosher or keep the Sabbath day.   So I am not breaking any commandments, nor am I annulling anything.

Quote

I believe your position is a 'foundational' misunderstanding. Simply put: Torah has not changed, we were lost and without God's instructions for salvation. God anointed a completed Tzaddik to appropriate atonement and bring us back to God's instructions for salvation. 

No, there is no misunderstanding on my part.   I have not said the Torah changed.  You are still trying to argue with me over something I never said.  

Where does the New Testament call Jesus a "completed Tzaddik?"   Jesus is God.   Jesus as God's Son paid for our sins on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to us.   He didn't merely bring us back to God's instructions for salvation.   Jesus IS salvation.  He is the personification and embodiment of salvation.   It is by God's grace through our faith in the Jesus and His finished work of the cross that we are saved. Jesus did far more than affect atonement.   He paid for ours sins and fully satisfied God's justice and has given us eternal life.

Quote

You may be saved out of Egypt, but if you think you're not obligated to follow God's instructions you'll die in the desert as those who refused God's instructions to enter and conquer the promised land.

Who said we are not obligated to follow God's instruction?  We are not obligated to live as Jews.  Torah observance is far, far more than simply living a Jewish lifestyle.

Quote

Do you believe for one second a person could stand east of the Jordon river proclaiming their Faith yet never crossing and God would count it to them as righteousness? 

That question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding regarding the nature of true faith.