Nazarene Space

If you have entered the Noachide Covenant (Gen. 9:1f) and have accepted Messiah then you are already betrothed to YHWH and you have salvation.

But we at the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim would like to invite you to take the next step and become part of the bride of YHWH, Am-Yisrael.

We want to invite you to join the Assembly of Israel, the Body of Messiah.

In the book of Numbers we read concerning Am-Yisrael:

From the top of the rocks I see him,
And from the hills I behold him:
Behold it is a people (AM) that shall dwell alone,
and shall not be reckoned among the nations (GOYIM)
(Num. 23:9)

In fact one major difference between these two Hebrew words for “people/nation” is that AM can refer to Israel but GOY refers to the OTHER nations. GOY is the word which can also be translated “Gentile”. So from this passage we see that there are two logical categories: Am-Yisrael (the People of Israel) also known as the Assembly of Israel and the GOYIM (Gentiles).

In Ester 8:17 we learned that many non-Jews in the Persian empire “became Jews” in the wake of the events of the first Purim. This is the process of becoming part of the AM of YHWH which are the Assembly of Elohim. This is the process through which Ruth stopped being a Moabite and started being part of the People of Israel, as Ruth declared:

For where you go, I will go;
And where you lodge, I will lodge,
your people (AM) will be my people (AM)
and your Elohim my Eohim.
(Ruth 1:16b)

Thus Ruth stopped being a Gentile Moabite and became part of the AM (people) which are not to be counted amongst the GOYIM (gentiles).

The International Nazarene Beit Din has established a process for Goyim wishing to become part of Am-Yisrael, wishing to become "Jews".

Persons who complete this conversion process will be halachicly regarded as Jewish within Nazarene Judaism.

These conversions are NOT accepted for immigration to Israel at this time.

This halacha is for a person to be halachicly regarded as Jewish and is not a process to make a person "saved."

The complete halachah is below:

Passed by The International Nazarene Beit Din on September 17, 1999 - revised Jan. 2nd 2009


Candidate must state that they seek conversion on conviction alone and
has no other motives.

Candidate must state that they have received Yeshua as the Messiah and
received the immersion of the Ruach HaKodesh.

Candidate must pledge complete and unreserved commitment to the Torah
and to the People of Israel. Candidate must complete or "test out" of
a conversion course which will teach them the commitments of the
covenant and the history and culture of the people whom they are joining.

A male seeking conversion must be circumcised.

a. Circumcision must be confirmed by two witnesses.
b. A candidate with a non-religious circumcision must undergo hatafat
dam b'rit, which is the ritual drawing of blood from the region.
c. The candidate is given time to recover (before the next step).
Candidate must undergo a ritual immersion (t'vilah).
a. This must be confirmed by two witnesses.
b. The candidate then recites the ritual prayer for immersions.
c. This is followed by a second immersion.
Candidate is given a new, Hebrew name.

Conversion must be officiated by a person having s'mikhah (ordination) from the International Nazarene Beit-Din.

If you would like to complete this conversion process, then join us at:
http://conversionclass.ning.com

Views: 110

Comment by Barzillai dov Ganya on January 2, 2009 at 8:32am
Isa 44:1-6 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
Thus saith the L-RD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
And they shall spring up [as] among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
One shall say, I [am] the L-RD'S; and another shall call [himself] by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the L-RD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel.
Thus saith the L-RD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the L-RD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no G-d.
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on January 2, 2009 at 6:51pm
Shabbat shalom,

The Nazarene halakhah as exhibited in the Apostolic Scriptures clearly has immersion first. Yet the halakhah of the WNAE has circumcision first, followed by immersion. The WNAE halakhah seems to follow the halakhah of Acts 15:1 (presumably the Shammai school of the Pharisees). Why did the WNAE choose this order of conversion, and not the "immersion first" halakhah of the ancient Nazarenes?

Wayne
Comment by James Trimm on January 2, 2009 at 7:57pm
Wayne,

Can you elaborate on this point? I would be quite interested in your source texts, as this is a point I had not heard nor considered before.
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on January 4, 2009 at 11:11pm
Shalom Rabbi Trimm,
Here are some texts that support the chronology of immersion before circumcision:
Matthew 28:19
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 11:11-18
Acts 15:1, 4 and 24
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:18

The chronology of immersion, instruction, circumcision aligns with what you wrote on the Systematic Theology class site at the Yeshiva:

Remember the issue being heard involves chronology of three things:


1. Becoming circumcised
2. Obtaining salvation/eternal life
3. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe

The above chronology is that of Paul's opponents. The beit din is
determining if this is true or if another chronology should be followed,
namely:

1. Obtaining salvation/eternal life
2. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe
3. Becoming circumcised

Paul's opponents placed circumcision first in the chronlogy, while Paul
placed it last.

The beit-din agrees with Paul.


Those who were already circumcised (on the eighth day) did not need to be re-circumcised, but one does not need to be a Campbellite (I'm not) to see the historic connection the emissaries made with life/salvation and immersion, e.g. Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12; 1 Kefa/Peter 3:21.

Blessings,
Wayne
Comment by James Trimm on January 8, 2009 at 7:56pm
The original debates among the Beit DIn on this halacha took place in 1999 and are no longer preserved. Several of the elements are currently being reconsidered by the current Beit Din members.

Regarding the issue of "hatafat dam b'rit, which is the ritual drawing of blood from the region" I recall this was a point of much debate. As has recently been put forth by talmid Wayne Ingalls (one of my most brilliant students inn the Yeshiva) the House of Hillel did not require this but the House of Shammai did (b.Shabb. 135a as I recall). Somehow the practice of the House of Shammai prevailed in Rabbinic Judaism. At the time we followed the stricter halacha wanting our own conversions to be at least as strict as an Orthodox Conversion. Part of the logic of this is that there has been moves to make Conservative and even Reformed conversions accepted under the Israeli Law of Return. There is precedence in Scripture for keeping a Pharisaic halacha that is stricter than the Nazarene halacha so as not to be excluded from the community.

The example is to be found in Matt. 17:24-27 concerning Yeshua and the Temple Tax

Here Kefa indicates the Yeshua pays the Temple tax, but Yeshua indicates that neither himself, nor Kefa nor apparently any of his followers owe the Temple tax. Yeshua does not seem to argue that he does not owe such a tax because he is the Messiah, for he extends the same privilege to Kefa and apparently all of his followers. Is Yeshua teaching against Torah?

The answer is no. The Torah does command that a Temple tax must be paid by every male 20 and older (Ex. 30:11-16) but is ambiguous as to how often it must be paid. The Pharisaic Halachah (and aparenetly the Sadducean Halachah) had the tax being paid annually during the month of Adar (m.Shek. 1:1, 3) However the Essenes of the Qumran community had a different Halachah. They taught:

...concerning the Ransom: the money of the valuation
which a man gives as ransom for his life shall be half
a shekel in accordance with the shekel of the sanctuary.
He shall give it only once in his life.
(4Q159 Frag 1; Col. 2; lines 6-7)

Now if Yeshua held to this Essene Halachah then He would not believe that he or his followers owed the tax, if they had aleady paid it at least once in their lifetime. This would explain why Kefa said that Yeshua pays the tax, while Yeshua claims that he and his followers don't owe the tax.

17:27 and when you have opened its [the fish’s] mouth. You will find a litra - Some light may be shed on this story by a very similar story found in the Talmud:

Others state: R. Ammi and R. Assi carried in and out, saying,
‘If R. Johanan visited us, would we not carry before him?’
Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths had in his victory a certain
gentile who owned much property. Soothsayers told him,
‘Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths will consume all your
property. [So] he went, sold all his property, and bought a precious stone with the proceeds, which he set in his turban. As he was crossing a bridge the wind blew it off and cast it into the water, [and] a fish swallowed it. [Subsequently] it [the fish] was hauled up and brought [to market] on the Sabbath eve towards sunset. ‘Who will buy now?’ cried they. ‘Go and take them to Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths,’ they were told, ‘as he is accustomed to buy.’ So they took it to him. He bought it, opened it, found the jewel therein, and sold it for thirteen
roomfuls of gold denarii. A certain old man met him [and] said,
‘He who lends to the Sabbath, the Sabbath repays him.’
(b.Shabbat 119a)

It would appear that the fish had swallowed a litra which Kefa then found inside. Yeshua foreknew that YHWH had provided the Temple Tax for them in this manner.

It appears that while the Essene halacha was "true" it was permissible, perhaps even advisable to keep the stricter Pharisaic halacha in order not to be excluded from the Temple and the community.

On the other hand Yeshua's halacha most often sides with Hillel's less strict halacha, so a good argument can be made that the Nazarene halacha more likely agreed with Hillel.

These are issues the Beit DIn is reconsidering right now.

Comment

You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service