Nazarene Space

In response to "Exposing the roots of Rabbinic Judaism and their link to Rome"

The following is a quote from that article.

“Ma’asim” (mah-ah-seem): “Acts or deeds that serve as precedents or laws of standard behavior”—
like the wearing of the sun disc hat (kippah) and lighting of Shabbat candles with the prayer that
says: “Blessed are you, King of the universe, who has commanded us to light the Shabbat candles”.
Come on now folks, did Yahuweh command us to light candles on Friday night? -- NO! Did He teach
us to have a special type water container filled with water, and then pour the water over the right
hand, then the left hand, repeating that two or three times, in order to please Him? NO!”


The Halacha includes the principle of Ma'asim “works or deeds”. The principle works like this...
If a certain high level Zadik/rabbi does something in his life as a habit or custom then we should follow his lead and do what he is doing. We are to take that rabbis life as an example on how to live our own lives. Lets find out if the NT teaches us this principle.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, for we are not disorderly among you...not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example for you to imitate.”

In addition to all the times that the NT tells us to follow or imitate the works of rabbi Yeshua, we have this verse telling us that we are to imitate or follow the ma'asim of rabbi's Shaul, Sila, and Timothy.

Here is another concern raised in that article.

The Commandments of Rabbis: “By observing the rabbis’ commands, you are obeying God”.
From the Midrash Pesikta Rabbi: “A person must not say `I will not keep the commandments of the
elders because they are not from the Torah’. The Almighty says to such a person, `No my son!
Rather, all that they decree upon you observe! As it is written: “According to the instructions which
they teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). `Even I (Yahuweh) must obey their decree as it is written
`you will decree and I (Yahuweh) will fulfill it’”.


The authors concern can be broken into two parts

1 – Do rabbi's have authority to issue commands?

2 – Whose word do we listen to, a heavenly beings or our Rabbi's? Who has the received authority to be obeyed?

Lets deal with the first concern by referring to the 2 Thessalonians once again.

2 Th 3:4-14 “And we trust in the master as to you, both that you do and shall do what we command you...but we command you, brothers, in the name of the master Yeshua messiah, that you with draw from every brother who walks (Halacha – having a different Halacha) disorderly (without the siddur – siddur means order) and not according to the tradition (Note that he said traditions and not written Torah only) which you received (a tradition that must be handed down and not made up) from us (your rabbis)...For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone does not wish to work, niether let him eat (this command is not in the written Torah as such)...and if any does not obey our word (the word of your rabbi) in this letter, note that one, and do not keep company with him, so that he is put to shame.”

There, the issue is dealt with, rabbi's have authority to make commands and we have to follow them. Period.

And the second concern can be addressed in...

Galatians 1:8 “However even if we, or a messenger out of heaven, bring a good news to you beside what we have announced to you, let him be accursed...For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Yeshua Messiah.”

Rabbi Shaul states that even if a heavenly being (it does not say a fake heavenly being, its refering to A REAL ONE) comes to you and tells you something different than what Rabbi Shaul told you then don't listen to the heavenly being listen to your rabbi...Shaul.

Views: 256

Comment by Mikha El on August 21, 2009 at 9:20pm
"There, the issue is dealt with, rabbi's have authority to make commands and we have to follow them. Period".

I'm not as certain a blanket endorsement of rabbinic Judaism is the intent of 2 Th 3:4-14. How could it be when they themselves are in Torah violation by not openly accepting the Messiah. No ones threatening them with their lives now, so to use that as an excuse is lame. I am not berating them, only stating fact.
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on August 24, 2009 at 10:13pm
Shalom Shawn, I understand Paul to teach that if a heavenly being came and taught against what Paul received by the Set Apart Spirit that messenger would not, therefore, be a messenger from the Set Apart One, and if you obeyed that messenger you may well be obeying the message of "an angel of light," since it is written that the Evil One can masquerade as such.

We know that Paul subordinated what he said to the authority of the Scriptures. For example, in Acts 17 the Bereans are praised for researching and confirming from the Scriptures everything that Paul said.

The parallels between Roman Catholicism and Rabbinic Judaism seem very strong, and both really are founded upon authority -- both claim for themselves the sole authority to properly interpret Scripture.

This parallel is understood and even embraced by Roman Catholicism. An example comes from what a Roman Catholic sent me earlier this year:

"The first Christians were Jewish. They were the first to acknowledge Christ (also a Jew) as Lord and Savior. Why would the early Church NOT be entitled and obligated to carry on these ancient Jewish customs?? And it goes much more deeper than little red yarmulkes. The whole Mass and everything about the Catholic Faith is heavily rooted in ancient Judaism. You should look into it more deeply sometime. Being Messianic, I think you'd really be interested in all the Jewish parallels and history of the Catholic Church."

Now, whether the above is true or not, it is what Roman Catholicism seems to believe about itself.

Blessings,
Wayne
Comment by Shawn on August 31, 2009 at 2:31pm
Shalom Wayne, I just noticed your post here. Both Roman Catholicism and Rabbinic Judaism recognize that there should be a passed down order of authority. Who is the most likely one of those two to have it? Or has it just fizzled out?
Comment by larry on August 31, 2009 at 6:03pm
shawn I enjoyed you article i a fully agree keep up the good work
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on August 31, 2009 at 10:20pm
Shalom Shawn, my thought is that while both Catholics and the rabbis claim to have authority, neither of them actually have it. "Most likely" does not count, particularly when Yeshua said to the Pharisees that the Kingdom of Elohim would be taken from them:

Matthew 21: 43 Because of this I say to you: the reign of Elohim shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. 44 “And he who falls on this stone shall be broken,v but on whomever it falls, he shall be pulverised.” 45 And the chief priests and Pharisees, having heard His parables, knew that He was speaking of them. 46 And seeking to lay hands on Him, they feared the crowds, seeing they held Him to be a prophet.

If the Kingdom of Elohim is to be taken from the Pharisees, how is it that they have any authority over any who are entering into the Kingdom?

I think the correct answer is:

C. None of the above.

Blessings,
Wayne
Comment by James Trimm on August 31, 2009 at 10:31pm
While I agree that the keys were taken from teh Pharisees and given to the Nazarenes, I do not think that is the meaning of Matt. 21:43, see:

http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/understanding-the-para...
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on September 1, 2009 at 7:10am
Shalom Rabbi Trimm, and thank you for your comment. I will study this out some more, but it seems to me that vinedresser is to vineyard as shepherd is to flock.
Comment by Shawn on September 1, 2009 at 8:21am
Wayne (correct me if Im wrong) it appears your conclusion on the NT is that halachic authority was taken from the pharisees and given to another group unassociated with the pharisees. My conclusion is halachic authority was taken away from a group of corrupted pharisees and given to a group of good pharisees. So I dont conclude that halachic authority was taken away from pharisees, but from a bad group of pharisees. Therefore from Yeshua on halachic authority still resided with pharisees, but these pharisees just so happened to believe Yeshua was a/the Mashiach. (My definition of pharisee here is followers of oral torah which for my comment includes Essenes)
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on September 3, 2009 at 6:39am
But the nasi of the "good" group of Pharisees declared Simon Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews and the longest exile of Jews from the Land in history. So, as a result, the survivors of the "good" group of Pharisees ruled that Rabbi Akiva's decisions were null and void since it was obvious that he did not know how to hear from Yah, nor to distinguish good from evil. Psych! That is what should have happened, but clearly did not. Instead, Oral Torah claims that Rabbi Akiva was on Mount Sinai but that his teaching to Moshe was just too deep for Moshe to understand. (So, Oral Torah raises a false Prophet above the level of Moshe).

In your view, what was the effect on halakhic authority of the school of Hillel when the nasi from the school of Hillel declared a false Messiah to be true?

Wayne
Comment by Wayne Ingalls on September 3, 2009 at 7:02am
Shawn, do you know of any specific, conclusive reference to the views of Essenes within what is commonly known as Oral Torah -- not counting anything that was hidden from Judaism and the world until the discovery of the DSS? I haven't come across any, but your comment regarding the Essenes makes me curious to know if you have.

Wayne

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