Nazarene Space

There is a ritual in Judaism of passing authority to teach via laying on of hands, called "smikah". When a Rabbi is ordained he receives SMIKAH via laying on of hands. The Rabbis claim a line of SMIKAH going back to Moses, "Apostolic" Christian groups often trace a similar line of "Apostolic Authority" going back to the Apostles... This is an interesting topic and I will post a starter post in the discussions section on this.

Views: 556

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yakobv HaTzadik was killed in 63 CE. Succeeded by Shimon who died in 98 CE.

BTW my faith before Nazarene Judaism was Rabbinic Judaism, not Christianity. But I fail to see the relevance of what my parents and grandparents believed.

To my view anti-nomian Christians fell into two categories: so-called "Orthodox" and "Gnostic" both of which were apostate.
Zahav, These are 'pearls'. The 1/2 hour program is free to download, the full hour is not.

"Martyrdom of Ya’akov HaTsadeek #75
James the Just, brother of Messiah, suffered martyrdom about the year 63 CE. According to Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, it was widely believed that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred because of the murder of James the Just! In fact, it is claimed in the historical documents that the murder of James the Just was foretold by the prophet Isaiah and was fulfilled in the demise of the Jewish system in 70 CE at the hands of the Romans. It is remarkable that it was not only Messianic Jews that believed this regarding James the Just. Rather, this belief was widely held generally by all Jews of that era. What was so unique about the martyrdom of Ya’akov HaTsadeek a/k/a James the Just that the Jews would believe the destruction of their Temple, Holy City, and entire Jewish system was due to their treatment of James? In this episode we will consider the historical report of the martyrdom of James the Just. As we consider this report you will be amazed, you will be informed and you will be inspired by the story of this remarkable man of God. His story has a lot more to do with your life today than you could possibly imagine. You need to hear this program!" (www.tsiyon.org Archive of Messianic Radio Program linked from MessianicVoice.com)
Looking back over what I wrote, Zahav may have had difficulty following the English grammar of what I wrote. The only mention of Ya'akov HaTzadik was a passing comment that Shimon had succeeded him as Nasi of the Nazarene Sanhedrin. when I said "and who died in 98 C.E." I was still addressing the same original subject, Shimon. Ya'akov had died back in 63 which was why Shimon had succeeded him.
No Gentile Christianity was the result of an apostasy that began in 98 C.E. Nazarene Judaism continued long after. The Ancient Nazarene Sanhedrin lasted until 132 C.E.. Jerome speaks of visiting Nazarenes in the fourth century, and Epiphanius, at about this same time, refers to them as "small like a mosquito". I will write a blog on this some day, but there is evidence that remnants of the Nazarenes migrated to Ireland and Scotland and remained there into the Middle Ages. Individual Nazarenes (Torah Observant Jewish believers in Yeshua as Messiah) have always existed, but were cut off from each other and unaware that there were any others, disorganized. Then in 1996 we reorganized.
Yes the anti-nomian apostasy occurred in 98 C.E. when Ignatius of Antioch seceded from the authority of the “Emissaries and Elders” of the Jerusalem council. Declared the local bishop to the ultimate authority, declared the Torah to have been abolished, moved the day of worship to Sunday, condemned “Judaism” coined the term “Christianity” and declared Christianity to be a new and different religion from Judaism. I have cited all of this in Ignatius own words. He was later a martyr to his false new anti-nomian Sunday worshiping religion.

The ruling that Paul received from the Emissaries and Elders in Acts 15 only pertained to what a Gentile had to do to be SAVED, not what they had to do to be part of the Assembly (these are not the same thing).

Understanding Acts 15
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/understanding-acts-15

What do you mean… “Church”?
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2182335:BlogPost:2574

The True Ministry of the Ruach HaKodesh
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-ministry-of-the-ruach

And:

The Seven Laws of Noah: A Betrothal
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-seven-laws-of-noah-a


Now if you read what we actually have said and leave your sarcasm behind you will find that nothing has been said of freemasonry, or of a Nazarene Sanhedrin existing at the time of Jerome or in Ireland or Scotland. We have plainly stated that the Nazarene Sanhedrin probably dissolved in 132 C.E. but that Nazarene Judaism as a community seems to have continued into the fourth century and that some Nazarenes may have migrated into Ireland and Scotland and continued there into the middle ages (this has NOTHING to do with masonry and mostly to do with the fact that several Irish and Scottish Christian commentators during this time make quotes from “The Gospel of the Nazarenes” and the fact that some Christian groups in Scotland were still keeping annual Passover until the seventh century.

As we have said our Beit Din is “anchored” in Deut. 16:18 which authorized and obligated us in 1996, in the absence of an International Nazarene Beit Din, to make one.
Zahav,

I read over your lengthy discourse and frankly found it full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

You miss the flowing facts:

1. Paul was not in any way anti-nomian.
2. The ONLY issue before the “Jerusalem Council” was whether Gentile must be circumcised in order to be saved, not whether they should ever get circumcised later.
3. Ignatius instituted changes and aposticized from what he had received from his fore runners. (As prophesied by Paul in Acts 20:28-29 that wolves would arise among the Overseers (Bishops) after Paul’s death). He seceded from the authority of Jerusalem, declared Torah abolished, moved the day of worship to Sunday, decaled “Judaism” false and coined the term “Christianity” for his new religion.
4. Hanging your hat on Mt. 23:2-3 is a weak place to hang it. Not only do some manuscripts have an alternate reading which does not support your interpretation, but I have already shown in detail that the following context in the rest of the chapter cannot be supporting your interpretation of verses 2-3.
5. The commandment of Deut. 16:18 like the rest of the Torah, was not just a commandment to those living in the wilderness at the time. One could just as easily say the commandment to wear Tizitizt was only for those in Moses’ day.
6. The word NOTZRIM is the modern Hebrew word for “Christians”, we are NETZERIM (Nazarenes). I have written extensively on this in the past, and maybe I will repost something on it again soon in my blogs.
Would Peter and John's resistance to the ruling of the Jewish council (Acts 4) display that though John and Peter were torah observant that they had sufficient reason to not obey a decision by the "leaders of the people.". Does not their answer reflect an authority which was given to them in the great commission? Messiah resurrected the authority of the House of David. Isn't this the basis of the Beit Din of Messiah? It is interesting that many of the Pharasees attached themselves to the Beit Din over which James presided. Obviously, there was some recognition of the Beit Din among the Jews in some quarters at the time of the Apostles. At our time in history, there is not the variety in high places of judaism as there was at that time. It seems to me you almost have to conform to Rabbinical Judism to be part of Israel. I know that the Karaites also are recognized.

Now, Obviously the early leaders (Nazarenes0 of Jerusalem followed the leadership of those who were in authority. At least Peter and John felt they had sufficient reason not to obey the authorities in this instance and viewed their authority as coming from God. So, we must observe the rabbinical teaching, learn from them, follow their teaching unless it violates the specific commands which were given to the beit din at Jerusalem, I am just musing. This basically reflects the great commission and teachings offered in contradiction to some of the rulings of the different groups of the leadership particularly the House of Shamma, and the Sadduccees, as well as some of the strict interpetations of the Essenes.

zahav peretz said:
James,

Indeed Yeshua criticized Pherushim for their "conduct," but YESHUA NEVER QUESTIONED THEIR AUTHORITY TO TEACH CONCERNING TORAH HALACHA.

To illustrate: The Senate may criticize the President, lambaste him, correct him for his executive blunders... but he remains the President of the United States of America, he remains the Chief Executive as sworn to office.

One honest thing that we must tell the crowd here is this: TEACHING AUTHORITY IS OF DIVINE INSTITUTION no single believer has the right to institute his own or to fashion his own according to taste and demand official acceptance from others.

Yeshua vehemently criticized Pherushim for not doing what they teach, true, but He never took away their office.

I don't subscribe to that changing "key" theory; G-d doesn't easily change the mind.

If anyone should insist about Kefa's "key" my question is:

CAN ANYONE HERE DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS CURRENTLY ASSUMED TEACHING AUTHORITY WAS RECEIVED FROM LINEAGE OF KEFA AS WARRANTED THROUGH AN UNINTERRUPTED LINE OF TRADITION AND SUCCESSION?
For there are many claimants to this Tradition but all have contradicting doctrines: Ergo, some claimants must be lying or must have erred; if this is so, how can anyone here prove beyond doubt that his claim to this is not in error?

This Kefa key (Petrine Key) is a favorite of the Roman Church theosophy. I didn't expect a notzri is following their thinking. Most non-catholic christian theologians interpret Mat. 16:19 as The Faith, but now, I am surprised you have imported an interpretation from the Vatican, used in Roman Church apology --however, modified with a fashion of semitism for equating the key to a beit diyn.

----------------------

Please allow me to present my position over the posted verses:

Quote:
>>".... It is this problem that Yeshua addresses when he criticizes hypocrisy among the Pharisees. Sincerity of heart is supposed to be the defining characteristic of the foundations of Pharisaic Judaism, Pharisaic Judaism stripped of its core principle became hollow. I believe this is what Yeshua meant when he said:

You are the salt of the earth,
and if the salt has lost its savor,
how will it be salted?
It is afterwards good for nothing,
But to be cast aside,
And trampled by men.
(Matthew 5:13)

"Note in Matthew Yeshua says:

…they [hypocrites] delight to stand in the assemblies
and at the corners of the streets to pray,
that men may see them.
(Matt. 6:5)
...
Yeshua continues his attack on hypocrites saying:

And when you pray,
multiply not your words like the Goyim do…
(Mt. 6:7-8)"

REPLY:
--I believe this is what Yeshua meant when he said:.. Nothing can be proven as true on the mere argument of "you believe."

---Nothing in above verses can be inferred as particularly concerning Phariseeism. Yeshua is not talking to any Pharisee here nor about Phariseeism, verses 1 and 2 describes to whom He was talking: "car'otu et hamon ha'am... vayoriym vay'omar" it was a multitude to whom He was speaking to, it doesn't tell anything about phariseeism except v.19, nor does He talk of certain pharisee. In fact, in the entire Chapters 5 and 6 from where these pseudo-arguments depended for proof the term "Pharisee" is mentioned only in relation to the "keeping or doing of Torah" verse 5:19-20 but as of the rest no more.

Certainly it was about "hypocrites" but are the pharisees alone hypocrites? No. Hypocrites were found inside&outside the Temple, inside&outside the Phirushim, inside&outside the city gates, they even exist today anywhere.

Yes there were hypocrites among the pharisees, but there were more hypocrites outside the pharisees. The term hypocrite here is taken in universal genus, thus it applies to ALL hypocrites, including those people who arrogate for themselves "tithes" but are aware that they are not themselves levites nor kohanim to deserve it under the Law.
===============

Quote:
>>"Yeshua continues his criticism of “hypocrites” saying:

…they begrime and disfigure their faces
that they may appear in the sight of men to fast…
when you fast anoint your head and wash your face…
(Matt. 6:16-18)

Here Yeshua is not condemning a Pharisaic practice but an Essene practice as Josephus writes of the first century Essenes:
They think oil is defilement; and if one of them
is anointed without his own approbation,
it is wiped off his body; for they think to be
sweaty is a good thing…
(Josephus; Wars; 2:8:3)"

REPLY:
---This conclusion, as few writers do, against the Essenes based on the Yosephus statement is invalid for fallacy of ignoratio elenche as can be shown, to wit:

1) Yeshua' was talking about "one who is fasting" but the statement of Yosephus does not concern of anyone fasting: Yosephus merely is describing a peculiar custom practiced among Essenes, fasting or not, thus it cannot satisfy the wanted premise: Matt 6:16 did not specifically mean the "Essenes" so it could mean others.
2) Yeshua attacks the pretended dolorous disfiguring of their faces; but this point is not supported in the Yosephus material, Yosephus doesn't say anything about a disfigured face among essenes, thus it cannot be inferred at all from the given material that essenes are meant by the author and no other else. i.e. we or anyone can avoid oils yet remain cheerful, if we can the essenes too can.
3) How could the essenes begrim their faces "so as to be seen by men" when they are monastic people staying inside their community caves on fast days rather than going about the streets of Jrushalyim miles away? Judge it by yourselves.

Rebbe Yeshua here teaches plainly in the context that when you fast you may apply oil or wash your face, as to hide your fasting "...and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly v.18." It says nothing about Phariseeism nor about Essenes.
==============

Quote:
>>"When Yeshua criticized Pharisees for hypocrisy he was challenging Pharisees to return to the Chassidic roots of Pharisaic Judaism. He was encouraging Pharisees to return to their foundational teachings, the Tanak and the teachings of Simon the Righteous and Atigones of Soko.

Yeshua was teaching CHESED, he was teaching Chassidism and he was teaching the values of Antigones of Soko...."

REPLY:
---What?!

Yeshua' taught in/by/of his "own authority" for transcendent edification of Jews and all humanity, not for men to return to second temple chassidism, or to comply, nay that Yeshua conform His values to Pharisaism according to Shimon hatzadik veAntigonus Soco. Let us not put the cart ahead of the horse. Why would Moshiach the Supreme Teacher need conform his lessons to teachers above whom He chaired the deanship of teaching? This is too naive for one claiming a Ph. D. in sacred science.

[If you did not mean in that book (as quoted in post) to drive this irony unto the face of the reader please edit it, replace it a better diction or rephrase your syntax. It is our duty to render ease of reading and maintain clarity of thought.]

THE GENERAL RULE: "Between Yeshua Moshiach and tradition of Elders (including Zugot and Tannaim): in every case of conformity over any point of
Teaching it is for the Elders to receive worthy merit for 'anticipative rectitude' of teaching for conforming to the awaited Moshiach, but not for the Moshiach to receive a petty 'retroactive' credit for rectitude of teaching. This means Moshiach holds the absolute Supremacy of the Teaching Office over and above the Moses commission; Moshiach teaches the Elders and so on, but not vice versa."

Come and hear: Moshiach may have confirmed or affirmed most of halachic prescriptions of the Scribes and Pharisees, but He never teach their doctrines; He was his own authoritative doctrine, for Moshe wrote about Him, and the world was created for Him, as we are taught by the Sages. [Sanhedrin 98b; Sanhedrin 99a; Devarim 18:19] If you admit it He is the Way the Truth and the Life, no truer teaching can better Him. Such is His proper position in the order of things else He is not Moshiach at all. For G-d so loved the world that He gave to us NOT a sloppy corporal but the No.1 General in the Chain of Command above.
==============

Quote:
>>"When Yeshua was criticizing hypocrisy among Pharisees, he was calling for a return to authentic Pharisaic Judaism, which is why Paul was able to say confidently “I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6)"

REPLY:
--- "which is why..." ?
Definitely not. Moshiach brought us a more transcendent meaning of Torah: He brought to the Jews not merely a system of "separationism" but a more sublime message of how purity in Torah is intimately connected to Malchut Shomayim. He did not come to call us back to post-Ezra Pharisaic Judaism, He is calling us forward to The Kingdom that Come.
(Matthew 3:2) שׁוּבוּ כִּי מַלְכוּת הַשָׁמַיִם קָרְבָה לָבוֺא:

Shaul did not learn true Phariseeism from Yeshua' but from Gmali'el (Acts 22:3) a grandson to Hillel. Yeshua and Shaul did not even meet personally as human friends, except in a miraculous vision. Shaul's claim for being a pharisee in the quoted text Acts 23:6 does not flow "out of confidence" but out of anxiety in defense as he was facing an accusation before the Council; seeing pharisees and sadducees he wanted to divide and rule the body by stirring them at issue over resurrection, which indeed resulted into his acquittal. Smart enough.

Hypocrisy is not in issue directly or indirectly in the given case.
================

Quote:
>>"There is an interesting parallel in the teachings of a later movement that also took on the name Chassidic and whose founder the Baal Shem Tov (c. 1750) taught that Judaism must be centered not simply around doing the Torah, but around feeling the Torah."

REPLY:
---Yes, parallel though, but not similar. Yet the irony is that the followers of BST proclaimed him as another moshiach. A fate that the righteous BST did not claim to nor taught them in his lifetime. On the other hand, our Moshiach Yeshua claimed that He is the One and stood to that claim even unto death!
=============

Quote:
>>The Pharisees once held the Keys of the House of David. Mt. 23:13 is
key to understanding Yeshua's attitude to the Halachic authority of
the Pharisees. Here Yeshua says:
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men;
for you neither go in,
nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

A parallel passage appears in Lk. 11:52:
Woe to you scribes!
For you have taken away the key of knowledge.
you did not enter in yourselves,
and those who were entering in you hindered.

REPLY:
Get the sum of all verses Matt.23:13+Luk.11:52 still it is wanting: Yeshua never says "I am taking back the authority which you received from Moshe" or any way of this tenor. Take a father repremanding his naughty son, he may disown him at the peak of anger, but the son remains a son to him thereafter.

"Not getting in" doesn't mean Pharisees forfeited authority. On the contrary, from the words of Moshiach where He implies of "others to get in" this PRESUPPOSES that the Pharisees have already opened the door. Only that they themselves are not coming in. The door then remained open, for it was opened by the Scribes and Pharisees: they indeed have the authority. However, if they don't enter, anyone may enter today or tomorrow.

In Lk. 11:52 the word "key" or Gr. "kleisa" is mentioned, but let the readers freely draw their conclusion from the text.

The verse says: "Woe unto you lawyers...you have taken away the key of knowledge..." 11:52 ouai umin tois nomikois oti hrate thn kleida ths gnwsews autoi ouk eishlqate kai tous eisercomenous ekwlusate (Wescott-Hort) The meaning?

Come ask: Who took away? The lawyers took away the key of knowledge; this means that: G-d did not take away something from anyone in this verse.

From the language "key" as applied by the Moshiach here IS NOT A SYMBOL OF TEACHING AUTHORITY BUT OF KNOWLEDGE.

From whom the lawyers took away? From the hearers, the people. What was taken from the lawyers? Nothing was taken away from the lawyers.

It is clear therefore that "key" here does not mean TEACHING AUTHORITY because nowhere did Moshe passed this authority to the hearing people but to the Elders alone (Perk. Avot1:1-12).

Again: Who took away? ---The pharisees took away, not G-d.
From whom? ---From the hearers: not from the pharisees.
Ergo: pharisees lost nothing in the real equation. To say that Moshiach took away something from pharisees is not only a bad conclusion but lashon ha ra' for then we apply our own conclusion and use Moshiach as the poor mouthpiece. Lo' ta'aneh brayika 'eyd shaker.

But look, the conclusion offered at post, it said among others:
"...This "key" is clearly then "the key of the house of David" in Is. 22:22:"

It doesn't follow. Non sequitur. Of no common ground we can equate "key of knowledge" in Luk 11:52 to the key of Dovid's house in Isaiah 22:22.

1) The former key is symbolic to knowledge of Kingdom, taken by Pharisees from the people (but not taken by G-d from pharisees,) whereas, the key in Isaiah 22 is a gratuitous key concerning Eliyaqim son of Hilkiyahu, the house keeper of King Hezekiah son of Dovid. A house keeper is not a teacher of knowledge. (infra);

2) Dovid was the great king. But Dovid was not called to be a Rabban or a teacher of Law. It was Shmu'el who presided the beit diynu those days. Thus, if we grant for a moment without admitting, that Lk 11:52 key was about teaching authority HOW can it equate with that of Dovid's kingly order?

Rule of logic demands: that if the term "key" must serve as particular premise it must have one and only one common value in relation to two universal premises. Kelal u-perat--perat u-kelal (כלל ופרט ופרט וכלל); we simply cannot use one term for two different values and from these draw a conclusion that has neither of the two. כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט --the particular delimits the universal and wherefore issues whatsoever must contain within that limit. In variance to R. Ishmael, R. Akiva says it must include all of the peratot given, but in this case we have demonstrated that neither Lk 11:52 evaluates to the Teaching Office as an institution nor that of Isaiah 22:22. Thus, there is no means we can equate the two.

Yeshua said "..you shut up the Kingdom" because being models in keeping halacha "..they neither go in;" this is well stated by Yeshua in Matt23:2-3 already saying of the pharisees: "...for they teach and not do". This idea you have even augmented by quoting from Luk.11:52, a verse confirming that the shutting up meant (not because they hid the key, or there was a key but was lost or the key was stolen) but because they "did not enter in themselves" although some certainly did enter, the likes of Nicodemus, Yosef Arimathia and Sha'ul. THIS IS OF SUBJECTIVE MORAL ISSUE BUT NOT AGAINST AUTHORITY OF OFFICE.

For this reason Yeshua made sure that we are able to differentiate between "what they teach" and "what they do": telling us to "heed" what they teach but "not do" according to their actions because "they say but not do" glossed from Moshiach's words. Why heed them in what they teach? Because they have the authority to teach. Why not do what they do? Because they teach but not do. This is very clear from Matt. 23:2-3.

Come ask now: How far shall we do, such we are doing what they (pharisees) teach but do not do? We learn it from the Master, Yeshua said: "...these ought ye to have done, without leaving the others undone." (cf. Matt.23:23; Matt.5:20) From this we understand that every notzri is bound to keep all of the halacha, excepting only those gezeirot that renders written Torah of no effect.
==============

Quote:
>>"The key of the House of David I will lay on his shoulder;
so he shall open, and no one shall shut;
and he shall shut and no one shall open."

REPLY:
---From which yeshiva it is taught that the key of Eliaqim benHilkyahu keeper of the house of Chizkiyahu benDovid is all about Teaching Authority of the beit diyn? For Isaiah chapter 22 it is expedient to use the rule from R. Akiva:
כל פרשה שהיא סמוכה לחבירתה למדה הימנה "passages standing closer to each other must be interepreted together and with reference to its neighboring passages."

According to the preface by the author in vv. 1&2, Isaiah 22 is a burden of vision, a dreadful oracle concerning an impending attack against Jrushalyim then it describes a hint at how G-d provides deliverance of His people from enemy. This vision came to pass later (came true) in the fourteenth year of Melek Chizkiyahu (2Kings18:18-19:37) a later event detailed by Isaya in chapters 36 and 37.

The use of definite name "Eliaqim benHilkyahu" is a prophetic hedge applying this identity to that particular person alone and not to others nor to group of persons.
----------------------

>>"The key of the House of David I will lay on his shoulder;"
---This key laid upon his shoulder is explained further thus in v.22:21 "...your government I shall commit into his hand וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ, אֶתֵּן בְּיָדוֹ and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jrushalyim and the house of yhuda וְהָיָה לְאָב לְיוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וּלְבֵית יְהוּדָה. Now ask: If this be not about teaching authority how shall this oracle come to pass?

--This oracle was aptly demonstrated when it came to pass: On the fourteenth year of Melek Chizkiyahu, Assyrian king Sennacherib sent his troops and a captain to Jrushalyim; in response Chizkiyahu sent Eliyaqim benHilkyahu (his house steward, not an army officer) to the city gate to obtain terms from the invading force, (this is very peculiar prophesy fulfilled: Why would the king send a house steward, a pure civilian, to an enemy captain? else, why Eliyaqim when a good lawyer Shevnah was there?) after this Eliyaqim returned message to the king, cloths rent and torn for the evil omen; then again, he, Eliyaqim was sent by his king to the prophet Isaiah to inquire an oracle from G-d; the prophet proclaimed the oracle to him; therefrom Eliyaqim returned with G-d's triumphant oracle from the prophet to the king. All along the crisis Eliaqim was there performing delegated functions ought by the king; in short: through his delegated office [וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ, אֶתֵּן בְּיָדוֹ] G-d used him like a key to obtain a foretaste of miraculous salvation (fortaste of Yeshua,) for G-d's glory and for the sake of Dovid His servant (cf. 2Kings 19:34)

If the given prophesy was about Torah Teaching the key was ought be upon the shoulder of Shevna who was a smicha'd teacher and chief Scribe under King Chizkiyahu, and it was to be Shevna to become an instant father to the endangered inhabitants of Jrushalyim and to his house (not house of Dovid because he was in no way in charge over it). Yet as it pleased Hasheym it was Eliyaqim, that through a humble office G-d is able to show His greatness and power of salvation even in the face of strong enemy.
----------------------

>>"so he shall open, and no one shall shut;
and he shall shut and no one shall open."

--This power pertains exclusively to Moshiach (Rev. 3:7) By the hand of G-d according to the oracle brought back by Eliyaqim from Isaiah to Chizkiyahu the holy city was saved, G-d shut the gate of Jrushalyim from Sennacherib:
"Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come unto this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mound against it." (2Kings 19:32) So did He open the way for Sennacherib to retreat from Jerushalyim after sustaining substantial deaths and losses in troopts by the sword of an Angel, and no one shut it until Sennacherib died: "By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come unto this city, saith the LORD." ( read 2Kings 19:33-37)

The "key of house of Dovid" the "shutting" and "opening" in the oracle were completed as it happen in the fourteenth year of King Chizkiyahu benDovid, through the errands of Eliyaqim benHilkyahu the steward of the house of the king. Nothing here indicates the teaching authority of the Elders. There is no way we can stretch the oracle further as to take Eliyaqim to mean Kefa. The prophetic valuation of the "key" of Dovid is simply "Salvation" which was a foretaste given to the Jews in the fourteenth year of Chizkiyahu (2Kings 18:18-19:37) this value took the fullest meaning of Moshiach's Redemption said in Revelation 3:7. Nothing in the verse can merit support to or against The Teaching Authority passed by Moshe to the Elders.
------------------------

>>"The Pharisees took away the key (authority) thus shutting up the
Kingdom.."
---Pardon but this is tantamount to cheating. We have demonstrated that offered verses above cannot warrant the needed effect; this conclusion becomes a pure invention. Consider these:

1) Pharisees took away the "key of knowledge" but not authority. Read again Luke 11:52 the word "authority" is an interpolation. For authority, the scribes and pharisees had it already in possession from Moshe through Tradition from the Elders (Pirkei Avot 1:1-12; Mishneh Torah, hakdimah 4-23) Thus, scribes and pharisees have the authority that people don't have: no need to take from others something you already have; practically you cannot take from him something he doesn't have.

2) Let us not lose sight of the fact that even Yeshua did not take away but already confirmed this authority in them saying "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moshe's seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe that you observe and do...".

3) Moreover, the Pharisees cannot in any way shut the Kingdom from the people, as you would want to say, because the Son of Man has already brought it to the people for free! Even the wisest of them R.Gamaliel knew this: "But if it be of G-d, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against G-d." (Acts 5:39)
-----------------------

>> "They lost the authority, it was taken from them and given to
Yeshua's Talmidim:"

---"It was taken from them..." ? There is no basis that supports "taking away" from Pherushim. On the contrary, in the given text Luk.11:52 rather it is the Pherushim who are taking away; further there is no text stating that G-d took away something from somebody. By the way since when did G-d change mind? :)
---This is pleading for a force majeure. There is no veritable text presented that can prove directly that G-d took authority away from them or from anybody. Whereas, proof in Matt. 23:2-3 is a direct evidence that Yeshua confirmed this authority in them: there is therefore a continuity of office: in the absence of subsequent repealing law the statute remains in force. For anyone interested to reverse this he must counter it with direct evidence too. It is not enough to show how Yeshua criticized their "poor conduct of behaviour", you must destroy their Teaching Office first by the use of other arguments available, because in Matt 23:2-3 Moshiach confirmed their authority for the people to heed and do their teachings; Moshiach did not destroy it.
-----------------------

>> "In Mt. 16:18-19 Yeshua says he would give "the keys of the Kingdom" to
Kefa and his other talmidim:
And I also say to you that you are Kefa,
And upon this rock I will build my assembly,
and the gates of Sheol shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

REPLY:
--- This is different. There are "keys" not only one "key". Two keys at least. Note that this is not the "key of Eliaqim benHilkiyahu" (singular) of Ishaia 22:22 but the "keys of the Kingdom" (plural). Moreover, it is not about "shutting or opening" but of "loosing and binding". They are not the same.

You may take one key from two keys, but you cannot take one key then offer it for two: therefore, these keys of authority in Matt. 16:18-19 is not the "key" as the one given through Moshe. For the Law came through Moshe but grace and truth came through Yeshua Moshiach (cf. Yochann 1:17.) The new keys are intended for a different mission.

[I have no time to reinvent the wheel of commentaries over this verse. Go find out yourself how the early christians interpreted it, use the commentaries in your bibles, or use google. You will find out that even the sub-apostolic theologians never understood this authority as a "replacement to authority of the Jewish Oral Tradition." It is enough here below to ask few questions about this unique authority and give the proper answers.]

What are the extents of this authority? --To the extent of apostolic ministry.

What is the apostolic ministry? --"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."(Mark 16:15) ---"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:19-20). ==Come ask this: What of "teach all nations" concerning halacha? --Not the oral Torah, the Master said "teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you (that is: to you apostles, not through Moshe.) What did the Master teach the apostles if not Oral Torah? --He taught them the sod (secrets) concerning Redemption and Malchut Shomayim hidden all over Tanakha which was to be preached beginning from Jrushalyim. (Luke 24:44-49).

Had the apostles exercised this authority? ---Yes. Shimon barYona used these keys in the name of being the Kefa: he was the first to preach the gospel to the Jewish people on Chag Shavu'oth (Acts 2:38-42); he was the first to preach the gospel to the non-Jews (Acts 10:34-46) and imposed this ruling as gezerah shavah (to freely share the gospel to goyim) when council of apostles deliberated on similar issues. Yes the Apostles too used this authority in a corporate capacity (Acts 15:1-20, pursuant to Matt.18:18).

==Come ask this way: But Acts 15:20 the council defined halachic rulings on idolatry, nebelah and blood, does it mean corporate exercise of Keys of the Kingdom replaced the Moshe commission of Sanhedrin?

---Adoption of these halachic points set the minimal requirements for the goy believers alone, proof to it is their exclusion from being circumcised. Should the goy believer voluntarily choose to advance further in Torah the apostles pointed him to the synagogue every Shabbat as the rightful authority for this learning (cf. Acts 15:21). Here it is evident that the Apostles, even in the exercise of authoritative Keys of the Kingdom, being assembled as council, respected, confirmed and acknowledged the rabbinic authority in the synagogues as the rightful teachers of Torah halacha, being successors to the tradition of seventy elders founded by Moshe ravinu himself as commanded by G-d. Had official position of Apostles was not to recognize the authority of rabbis to teach concerning Torah halacha they being in Council assembled would not have expressly pointed to synagogues at all. Moreover, in the given heated agenda: circumcission, Law keeping and messianic Teachings, taken up by the council assembled in Acts 15, it was opportune for the Apostles to severe, disenfranchise or anathemize Rabbinism if it was so taught by Moshiach while with them; but as it happened rather the Apostles pointed new christians to the synagogues concerning Torah halacha if so desired. From this we learn: that apostles who were direct teacher-succerssors of Moshiach did not contravene the teaching authority lodged upon rabbis in matters Torah halacha. So ruled history.

=What then, the apostles have teaching authority and the rabbis have also: Does one Kingdom need two separate teachers?
---Since Moshiach ben Yosef all roads must lead to the Kingdom. The apostles received a separate mission, to preach the gospel to all nations, to this they received commensurate teaching powers to fulfill the mission. The rabbis received commission by Oral Tradition to serve as teachers and judges to Jewish people concerning Torah halacha, to this they received commensurate powers through Moshe.

A greek does not get circumcission upon baptism; while the Jew ought remain a Jew upon mikveh. A christian seeking sincere conversion to subject himself unto circumcission may freely do so; while a scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old (Matt.13:52) i.e. both new and old remain as treasures.

Gospel and Torah were meant by G-d for man to enjoy the fullness what the faith of Avraham avinu can offer this life and the world to come. The rest became contentions of the bigots.
==========

Pardon me if in some points I am found tactless and charmless. I am but a man: a busy man like you.

Salud veshalom,

zahav peretz
It only takes 1/2 hour of your time. You can download the file and copy it to a CD and listen in your car on a drive, if you wanted to make the best use of your time. You can't read your books while you are driving.
Circumcision of the flesh is nothing. It was only up unto Yeshua, physically showing the seed passing through the covenant in the flesh. Messiah has been born in the flesh. Yahweh has declared by His works that circumcision is nothing and this is what Jacov declares after hearing all the evidence of Yahweh's works.

When Timothy was circumcised by Paul, it was so he would be able to enter into the synagogue of the non-believing Hebrews.
wow this is getting to be a long discussion...its 1:35 in the morning for me so i didnt get to read all of this but I wanted to throw out there that I seem to have same concern as Zahav I just found this discussion, but I have been bring up the exact same issue in the article of oral torah for nazarenes.

This is my concern...

the made out of thin air Smikah of modern day repenting christians who are calling themselves restored nazarenes

VS

The Smikah of orthodox Judaism (WHO DO BELIEVE IN YESHUA! though they have to keep it quiet) and have kept a true passing down of teaching, torah, oral torah, kabbalah, faith in mashiach and so on.

Making courts of justice and having elders of communities is great....BUT to all the sudden declare yourself (DECLARE YOURSELF) the international beit din of nazarene Judaism and the full halachic authority even over Judah....thats such a huge stretch. I posted all my concerns about this kind of thinking on the other board, but it looks like I need to copy and paste them in here.

And to call the Jewish people "UNBELIEVERS" that we should not be yoked with? this make me feel sick I almost want to cry when here that. I really feel sick hearing such an outrageous statement. And to use the phrase come out of babylon in connection with judaism....very very sad. I guess I need to post the transcript of Simcha Pearlmutters testimony that the orthodox DO BELIEVE IN YESHUA. But because they were killed by ROME hand over fist for centuries they stopped saying it out loud.

Where to even begin. UNBELIEVERS ...really? OY. First off how can you possibly know the secrets of every jews heart of wether they believe in Yeshua or not. Secondly even if an individual in no way confess the name of Yeshua as Mashiach, this does not in any way reduce his relationship with Hashem so long as he is living according to the Torah.

And to refer to pharisiac Judaism at the time of Yeshua as if it were exactly the same as the rabbinic Judaism as today? Yeshua was dealing with the defunct version of oral torah created by judas of galilee. Its not like there was just one type of pharisees at a yeshuas time. In fact there was two radically different forms of pharisees.

And to refer to the saducees, pharisees, nazarenes, and essenes in nice neat little packages is fine...up until the roman exile. But after that they all fused together so that amongst Judaism today there is the direct halachic descendants of the nazarenes. We must address the fact that there have been believers in Yeshua amongst Judah this whole time. We must address the kabbalists. And I imagine it would take decades of reasearch to determine the level of faith they have maintianed through out the centuries.

I regret to say that these ideas sound like replacement theology in new clothes.
Actually I came out of Rabbinic Judaism, as have some others in our movement. But that is not the real issue, truth is.
Pearl,

You made some very dogmatic statements with absolutely no Scriptural support:

"Circumcision of the flesh is nothing. It was only up unto Yeshua, physically showing the seed passing through the covenant in the flesh. Messiah has been born in the flesh. Yahweh has declared by His works that circumcision is nothing and this is what Jacov declares after hearing all the evidence of Yahweh's works. When Timothy was circumcised by Paul, it was so he would be able to enter into the synagogue of the non-believing Hebrews."

You gave no Scriptural support, because frankly there is none, the statements you make are simply false.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service