If you're not an MJ, what are you doing here ? Jolae
IDBC wrote: “I have also heard that at least some Jews consider Yeshua to have been a pharisee and a rabbi. “
I am not a “messianic Jew”, I (le-havdil) practise meta-orthodox Judaism.
First of all, let’s start with this important distinction: “No one can follow two polar-opposite masters — theauthentic, historical,pro-Torah1st-centuryRibifrom Nazarethandthe 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesisanti-Torahapostasydeveloped by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to killRibi Yәhoshua [ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth], displaced his original followers andredacted the NT).” (quote: Netzarims website; with a little addition of mine)
A logical analysis (found here: Netzarim) of the earliest manusscripts (including the logical implications of the research by Ben-Gurion Univ. Prof. of Linguistics Elisha Qimron of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT) of “the gospel of Matthew”, implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Perushi (Pharisee). Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth was called a Ribi and only the Perushim had Ribis. So yes, if you mean Ribi Yehoshua, then according to a historical analysis he was a Perushi Ribi (Pharisee Ribi).
Since NT contains anti-Torah statements the logical conclusion is that Ribi Yehoshuas talmidim (apprentice-students) Netzarim never accepted NT.
Thank you for you response. It is my understanding that most religious Jews are "messanic" in that they are awaiting the return of "the" messiah either the Suffering Sevant or the Triumphant King. So how are "Messianic" Jews different from....other Jews who are religious ?
Most Jews are awaiting the Messiah, Messianic or not.
Any Jew who is awaiting the Messiah is Messianic. I can't see how you could be "awaiting the Messiah" and not be a Messianic Jew.
There are other concepts of the 'Suffering Servant' Messiah, one of which is that he is contemporary with the Davidic Messiah and dies as the Davidic age begins.
I am not at all suprised that there are "other" concepts of the 'Suffering Servant' Messiah. The difficulty is which is the "correct" concept or even if there is one correct concept. There is and was a wide diversity of opinion among Jews with regards to the "correct concept" about many different concepts, including that of THE "messiah". I am reminded of the story about how three Jews were stranded on an island for five years and when they were rescued the resucuers found there religious sects and five political parties.
Some Jews at the time of Jesus had the concept that THE messiah was going to free "Israel"(the nation-country) from the oppression of the gentile-pagan Roman Empire by leading an armed revolt. Others had the concept that THE "messiah" was going to be a "priestly" messiah of rightouessness who would lead heavenly forces against the hated genitle-pagan Romans. And still others had the concept that there would be two messiahs a priestly messiah like Aaron and one would lead armies like Moses.
And there were also other controversies among various groups of Jews at that period of time.
Some Jews, I think the Essenes did not believe in freewill.
Other Jews, I think the Sadduces, believed in total freewill.
Other Jews, I think the Pharrisess took the middle.
Some Jews did-do believe in a "bodily-physical" ressurection and some didn't-don't.
This seems strange tho, that one Age has it's figurehead at the END while the other ushers in the Age at the beginning, where you'd expect!
Of course there are "messiahS" and THE messiah. I have heard that King David is considered to be A messiah. I have also heard the concept that Cyrus the Great is considered to have been "annointed by God" because he allowed the Jews to return to Israel, have some autonmny and more importantly(?)allowed the Jews to build the Second Temple. It would also seem plausible that all the prophets-patriachs could be considered to be "annointed by God-messiahs".
I was told but a Jew that Isa 53:3-5 was a reference to Israel and not to Yeshua.
He was correct. How is this possible? Israel !! What do I mean, Israel? Do I mean: the country of Israel, the land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael? Or do I mean the People of Israel, Am Yisrael, the Jews? Or, do I mean Jacob, Israel, the man? ALL THREE ARE ISRAEL! It's the same concept with Moshiach.
The way he explained it, it the reference was primarily to the country-land of Israel.
Of course, there is also Moshiach the man, who ushers in the Age and is the focal point of the transition. This is how my Rebbi explained it, I hope I made it clear enough.
By "puppets of Christianity" are you referring to "Jews for Jesus"?
Yes, there is a wide spectrum of MJ. On the one end are J4J and 'Hebrew Christians' which are for all intents and purposes Christian, with only a thin veneer of Jewishness. Judaism is only cultural to them. At the other end of the spectrum is non-Christian MJ who only follow the teachings of Yeshua which are in harmony with Judaism.
It is my understanding that Saul aka St. Paul was a Jew(or half Jewish?)pharisse before he became a.....heretic(?). I have also heard that at least some Jews consider Yeshua to have been a pharisee and a rabbi.
Paul never met Yeshua and was a bitter rival of those who did, but his faction won out and we all know the winners write the history books and favor themselves. There is no prominent opinion about Yeshua among non-MJ Jews. AFAIK Shalom
Paul never met Yeshua while Yeshua was INCARNATE. And while there is no evidence that Saul met Yeshua there is evidence that he knew OF Yeshua as well as the other apostles. But Paul had an.......alternative-transcendental state of consciouness-vision of the resurrected Jesusand that is how he "met" Yeshua.
St. Paul also abandoned circumcison. I find it interesting that St. Paul's theology and.....concepts were were often in conflict with those who knew Yeshua for a much longer period of time and while he was still incarnate.
"His aggressive writing style, even when addressing the supposed "super-apostles", many of whom would have had far more persuasive claims to apostleship, having known Jesus during his lifetime, may reflect a degree of defensiveness and insecurity on Paul's part in his dealings with the Jerusalem community under James."
"Paul confesses to having “violently persecuted” the “church of God” prior to his conversion.
Paul claims that he was a Pharisee and a Roman Citizen. It is not clear how he obtained this "citizenship". The Pharisees were anti-hellenistist and opposed the Roman domination of Jerserluem-Israel so there is reason to doubt that he was both Roman and Pharisee. The Pharisees were much less likely to have married non-Jew-Gentile. So how did Paul make a claim to be a Roman?
The Sadducees on the other hand were more.....amenable to hellenization and would have had....less of a problem with being a Roman citizen.
It has also been suggested by some scholars that Yeshua was an Essene. The Essenes opposed the way the Sadducees ran the Second Temple. So did Yeshua. The Essenes avoided living in the city of Jersurluem and Yeshua only made two vists there, once as a child and once as an adult.
The Essenes practiced baptism and Yeshua was baptized by John the Baptist.
It is not that clear that the Pharisees were as anti-Judeo Christian as they have been made out to be. Paul himself says that he was allowed to preach at synoguges and the syogouges were adminstered to by Rabbinic Pharisees.