Judaism is very messy.....

[Studyman]

Christianity often appeals to Judaism as source of originating information for Christianity. However, Judaism is historically very messy.

As any Jew what they believe and they will appeal to the "Talmud" as evidence. Big problem there. The Western and Eastern Talmud is dramatically different. Dramatically. Each take different paths to the present. Yet, even Messianic Jews will base their theology on the flawed existence of the Talmud.

Not only this, I could name many more reasons why the historical narrative for Judaism is controlled by unbelief in Jesus Christ.

I must ask, why do some Christians insist upon a Christianity based upon a narrative rooted in Judaism when that narrative is based in unbelief?

I find the argument promoted by this world's religious system concerning the difference between "Judaism" and "Christian" fascinating.

I have asked many times for a definition of "Judaism" and one for "Christian" too, but no one knows, or no one seems to be able to articulate a definition. And certainly there is one true definition for both words.

Unless you can define "Judaism", these threads are "vain jangling". So what is Judaism?

Is it the manmade doctrines, traditions and philosophies of the Talmud? Or is it the "Commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God, as defined by Moses, that Jesus lived by and walked in?

In other words, did Jesus live in "Judaism" or were the Pharisees the "Judaizers"?

I have heard a deceiver once say that Jesus taught different Laws than what God gave through Moses. And although it is true that Jesus was the High Priest of a New Priesthood, (Not after the Order of Aaron, as Prophesied) and that the temporary "works of the Law" for remission is sins, added "Till the SEED should come", had changed, as also prophesied, God's instruction in righteousness remained the same. This deceiver twisted Matt. 5 in an attempt to made null and void much of the Holy scriptures. For instance;

Matt. 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said "by them of old time", Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

This deceiver teaches that the "Them of Old Time" Jesus is speaking to here, are "God and Moses", and that Jesus came to bring a different Law than them.

But when a man reads what God Inspired Moses to actually write, we find this:

Lev. 19: 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, "nor bear any grudge" against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The "Them of old time" taught "some" of God's Law, but omitted the most important parts, at least according to the Jesus "of the bible".

Matt. 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The "Them of Old Time" Jesus is speaking to here are the Pharisees and their rebellious fathers. (Acts 7:51) They held to some of the teaching of God through Moses, but Omitted some of the most important parts. As Jesus tells them, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone".

They taught "Thou shall not kill", a Law of God given through Moses, but they omitted the part about how to treat their brother, also a Law of God given through Moses.

When a man goes through the list of practices and doctrines of "Them of Old Time" singled out in Matt. 5, he will find in every case, the Law and Prophets teach what Jesus taught, while the "Them of Old Time", had Omitted the Law of God given through Moses.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Deut. 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. 23 That which is gone "out of thy lips" thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

Matt. 5: 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Same exact teaching.

So who is the Judaizer in this case? The man, like Jesus, who "Lives by EVERY WORD" that proceeds from the mouth of God? Or the man who transgresses God's commandments by their own tradition of "Omitting" whatever parts of God's instruction they don't approve of?

Until a man comes to terms with the answer to this question, this discussion is simple vain jangling.

 

[Dizerner]

When a wrong definition gets popularized it does get confusing.

Some people think a "Christian" just means "a nice person."

 

[civic]

When a wrong definition gets popularized it does get confusing.

Some people think a "Christian" just means "a nice person."

yes defining words,terms and phrases is crucial if we are to progress in any dialgue. if we are not on the same page with the meaning then we are just talking past one another and we have no common ground to work from in our discussions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I find the argument promoted by this world's religious system concerning the difference between "Judaism" and "Christian" fascinating.

I have asked many times for a definition of "Judaism" and one for "Christian" too, but no one knows, or no one seems to be able to articulate a definition. And certainly there is one true definition for both words.

Unless you can define "Judaism", these threads are "vain jangling". So what is Judaism?

Is it the manmade doctrines, traditions and philosophies of the Talmud? Or is it the "Commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God, as defined by Moses, that Jesus lived by and walked in?

In other words, did Jesus live in "Judaism" or were the Pharisees the "Judaizers"?

I have heard a deceiver once say that Jesus taught different Laws than what God gave through Moses. And although it is true that Jesus was the High Priest of a New Priesthood, (Not after the Order of Aaron, as Prophesied) and that the temporary "works of the Law" for remission is sins, added "Till the SEED should come", had changed, as also prophesied, God's instruction in righteousness remained the same. This deceiver twisted Matt. 5 in an attempt to made null and void much of the Holy scriptures. For instance;

Matt. 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said "by them of old time", Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

This deceiver teaches that the "Them of Old Time" Jesus is speaking to here, are "God and Moses", and that Jesus came to bring a different Law than them.

But when a man reads what God Inspired Moses to actually write, we find this:

Lev. 19: 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, "nor bear any grudge" against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The "Them of old time" taught "some" of God's Law, but omitted the most important parts, at least according to the Jesus "of the bible".

Matt. 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The "Them of Old Time" Jesus is speaking to here are the Pharisees and their rebellious fathers. (Acts 7:51) They held to some of the teaching of God through Moses, but Omitted some of the most important parts. As Jesus tells them, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone".

They taught "Thou shall not kill", a Law of God given through Moses, but they omitted the part about how to treat their brother, also a Law of God given through Moses.

When a man goes through the list of practices and doctrines of "Them of Old Time" singled out in Matt. 5, he will find in every case, the Law and Prophets teach what Jesus taught, while the "Them of Old Time", had Omitted the Law of God given through Moses.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Deut. 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. 23 That which is gone "out of thy lips" thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

Matt. 5: 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Same exact teaching.

So who is the Judaizer in this case? The man, like Jesus, who "Lives by EVERY WORD" that proceeds from the mouth of God? Or the man who transgresses God's commandments by their own tradition of "Omitting" whatever parts of God's instruction they don't approve of?

Until a man comes to terms with the answer to this question, this discussion is simple vain jangling.

All that and you didn't provide a definition at all yourself.

So stop "jangling" according to your own requirement.

I myself. Have been defining Judaism according to Scriptures. Read what I write. If you expect to read like a "definition". Then move along. It is more complicated than one word or just a few words can completely define.

 

[Studyman]

When a wrong definition gets popularized it does get confusing.

Some people think a "Christian" just means "a nice person."

I agree for sure. There is a true definition of "Christian" and there is a true definition of "Judaism". It seems prudent to understand the definitions of these terms in order to proceed.

Is a Christian a person who call Jesus Lord, who hears the saying of the Jesus "of the Bible"? Or is a Christian a person who calls Jesus Lord, who is not just a hearer, but also a "Doer" of His Sayings?

Is Judaism walking in the Commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God that HE before ordained that men should walk in them, as shown in the Holy Scriptures, like Jesus did? Or is Judaism walking in the doctrines, philosophies and traditions of the religious sect of the Pharisees?

It seems very important to know the truth about these two words.

 

[civic]

I found this from Got ? not sure if it will help this discussion.

What is Judaism, and who or what is a Jew? Is Judaism simply a religion? Is it a cultural identity or just an ethnic group? Are Jews a clan of people or are they a nation? What do Jews believe, and do they all believe the same things?

Dictionary definitions of a “Jew” include “a member of the tribe of Judah,” “an Israelite,” “a member of a nation existing in the land of Israel from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.,” “a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people,” and “one whose religion is Judaism.”

According to rabbinical Judaism, a Jew is one who has a Jewish mother or one who has formally converted to Judaism. Leviticus 24:10 is often cited to give this belief credibility, although the Torah makes no specific claim in support of this tradition. Some rabbis say that it has nothing to do with what the individual actually believes. These rabbis tell us that a Jew does not need to be a follower of Jewish laws and customs to be considered Jewish. In fact, a Jew can have no belief in God at all and still be Jewish based on the above rabbinical interpretation.

Other rabbis make it clear that unless the person follows the precepts of the Torah and accepts the “Thirteen Principles of Faith” of Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, one of the greatest medieval Jewish scholars), he cannot be a Jew. Although this person may be a “biological” Jew, he has no real connection to Judaism.

In the Torah—the first five books of the Bible—Genesis 14:13 teaches that Abram, commonly recognized as the first Jew, was described as a “Hebrew.” The name “Jew” comes from the name of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob and one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Apparently the name “Jew” originally referred only to those who were members of the tribe of Judah, but when the kingdom was divided after the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 12), the term referred to anyone in the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Today, many believe that a Jew is anyone who is a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, regardless of which of the original twelve tribes he descends from.

So, what is it that Jews believe, and what are the basic precepts of Judaism? There are five main forms or sects of Judaism in the world today. They are Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic. The beliefs and requirements in each group differ dramatically; however, a short list of the traditional beliefs of Judaism would include the following:

God is the creator of all that exists; He is one, incorporeal (without a body), and He alone is to be worshiped as absolute ruler of the universe.

The first five books of the Hebrew Bible were revealed to Moses by God. They will not be changed or augmented in the future.

God has communicated to the Jewish people through prophets.

God monitors the activities of humans; He rewards individuals for good deeds and punishes evil.

Although Christians base much of their faith on the same Hebrew Scriptures as Jews do, there are major differences in belief: Jews generally consider actions and behavior to be of primary importance; beliefs come out of actions. This conflicts with conservative Christians for whom belief is of primary importance and actions are a result of that belief.

Jewish belief does not accept the Christian concept of original sin (the belief that all people have inherited Adam and Eve’s sin when they disobeyed God’s instructions in the Garden of Eden).

Judaism affirms the inherent goodness of the world and its people as creations of God.

Jewish believers seek to sanctify their lives and draw closer to God by fulfilling mitzvoth (divine commandments).

Judaism says that no savior is needed or is available as an intermediary.

The 613 commandments found in Leviticus and other books regulate all aspects of Jewish life. The Ten Commandments, as delineated in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, form a brief synopsis of the Law.

According to Judaism, the Messiah “anointed one of God” will arrive in the future and gather Jews once more into the land of Israel. There will be a general resurrection of the dead at that time. The Jerusalem temple, destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans, will be rebuilt.

Beliefs about Jesus vary considerably. Some view Him as a great moral teacher. Others see Him as a false prophet or as an idol of Christianity. Some sects of Judaism will not even say His name due to the prohibition against saying an idol’s name.

The Jews are often referred to as God’s chosen people. This does not mean that they are in any way to be considered superior to other groups. Bible verses such as Exodus 19:5 simply state that God has selected Israel to receive and study the Torah, to worship God only, to rest on the Sabbath, and to celebrate the festivals. Jews were not chosen to be better than others; they were simply selected to be a light to the Gentiles and to be a blessing to all the nations.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree for sure. There is a true definition of "Christian" and there is a true definition of "Judaism". It seems prudent to understand the definitions of these terms in order to proceed.

Is a Christian a person who call Jesus Lord, who hears the saying of the Jesus "of the Bible"? Or is a Christian a person who calls Jesus Lord, who is not just a hearer, but also a "Doer" of His Sayings?

Is Judaism walking in the Commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God that HE before ordained that men should walk in them, as shown in the Holy Scriptures, like Jesus did? Or is Judaism walking in the doctrines, philosophies and traditions of the religious sect of the Pharisees?

It seems very important to know the truth about these two words.

Peter used the word Christian. Peter didn't use the word Judaism. Does that matter to you?

Christian by definition IS a follower of Christ. However, Judiasm has never been defined as a follower of Christ.

Other than this, the conversation is an argument relative to many different things. That is as small a summary as I can provide.

 

[Dizerner]

I found this from Got ? not sure if it will help this discussion.

Key takeaway here I think is the term: "Rabbinical Judaism."

Is there a non-rabbinical Judaism, I think so.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Key takeaway here I think is the term: "Rabbinical Judaism."

Is there a non-rabbinical Judaism, I think so.

Then provide the evidence of such.

There is no Judaism without the rabbi. The word Jew never existed until Israel had long fell. It was created to denote the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It is why Paul appealed to being a Hebrew of Hebrews. He had a Jewish mother.

Not just a Jewish mother by a Jewish mother of countless Jewish mothers.

What remains of Israel today doesn't exist as such anymore. The blood of countless Gentiles have mixed with the mothers of national Israel.

These are facts. That is why I often ask for a definition of a Jew. You will not get these facts from anyone that will call themselves a "Jew". They hate these facts.

 

[civic]

Key takeaway here I think is the term: "Rabbinical Judaism."

Is there a non-rabbinical Judaism, I think so.

I will be the first to admit I'm no expert in Judaism. . I would say I'm somewhat an quasi "expert " on the N.T. ecclesia. Meaning I'm very comfortable debating issues with anyone on that topic regardless of their background in seminary, theology, the pastorate, layman etc....

 

[praise_yeshua]

I will be the first to admit I'm no expert in Judaism. . I would say I'm somewhat an quasi "expert " on the N.T. ecclesia.

Should someone claiming to be a Jew be the one that actually defines what it means to be a Jew.....

To me, this answer is clearly no. History should define it. So should the absolutes of the Scriptures and reason.

 

[Dizerner]

Then provide the evidence of such.

"Thus says the LORD of hosts:`In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." (Zech. 8:23 NKJ)

Clearly at this time God thinks there is a valid Jewish religion that he honored.

 

[civic]

Should someone claiming to be a Jew be the one that actually defines what it means to be a Jew.....

To me, this answer is clearly no. History should define it. So should the absolutes of the Scriptures and reason.

I would think so it would be like asking me to define a Christian or a Disciple of Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Thus says the LORD of hosts:`In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." (Zech. 8:23 NKJ)

Clearly at this time God thinks there is a valid Jewish religion that he honored.

You posted an English version.

The Hebrew word is late and is a reference to Judah. Dig a little deeper. You're conflating this with all those who claim to be Jews.

 

[Dizerner]

You posted an English version.

Nothing gets past you, man, that's an incredible observation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nothing gets past you, man, that's an incredible observation.

Why use the method of taking words at "face value". Start there. Recognize that dispensation is a English word. Trace origins of that word. Then cross reference the sematic range of meaning of that word in the original languages. This will help you to understand how what you are referencing as evidence itself is not really evidence at all. Just what someone said that doesn't match what was written.

 

[civic]

I will post this in this thread too

its like the English word worship has nothing to do with the actual Greek word which means to bow down, lay prostrate .

in church today "worship" means something entirely different than it did in the NT. the modern church thinks singing songs is worship and its not.

proskuneó: To worship, to bow down, to prostrate oneself
Original Word: προσκυνέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proskuneó
Pronunciation: pros-koo-NEH-oh
Phonetic Spelling: (pros-koo-neh'-o)
Definition: To worship, to bow down, to prostrate oneself
Meaning: I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship.

 

[Studyman]

Peter used the word Christian. Peter didn't use the word Judaism. Does that matter to you?

LOL, please look at the title of YOUR THREAD. I simply suggested that a man define the word "YOU" are using, the very "foundation of your thread", before any cogent discussion can be had about it. If you want to argue that point, it speaks to your heart, not mine.

Christian by definition IS a follower of Christ.

Yes, the Pope, Jones, Calvin, White, Russell, Smith, and everyone on the face of the earth that calls Jesus Lord, Lord, are "Christians" by your definition, as they all claim to be "followers of Jesus".

But your thread isn't "Christianism is very messy", which would be a good discussion. It's "Judaism is very messy". Isn't it important to understand what Judaism is, if you are going to say its messy?

However, Judiasm has never been defined as a follower of Christ.

But wait a minute, you just said it isn't defined in the Bible at all. How can you then call it "messy" and preach to others what it "doesn't mean"?

Do you really not see what I'm speaking to here?

Other than this, the conversation is an argument relative to many different things. That is as small a summary as I can provide.

If man defines Judaism as walking in the Commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God, like Zacharias, Simeon and the Faithful members of God's Church that Saul and the Pharisees, and their fathers before them persecuted, including its head, Jesus, then this understanding will influence us in one way.

But if Judaism is defined as walking in the doctrines, traditions and religious philosophies of men, like the rebellious Jews and the Pharisees did, opposite of what Jesus lived by, then this understanding will influence us in another way.

That is why I asked the extremely important question about who a Judaizer is, according to the definition you have adopted.

Jesus, or the Pharisees?

It's not complicated at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

But wait a minute, you just said it isn't defined in the Bible at all. How can you then call it "messy" and preach to others what it "doesn't mean"?

I know we like to argue with one another and there are reasons for this.....

but listen to me for just a minute.

Knowing it is not in the Scripture in certain aspects of the meaning... itself is evidence. There is a reason that Paul referenced such as the

"Jew religion" in a very negative context.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Now we can skip much of this argument if you want to accept this fact. Until you do, I will insist upon accurately defining every use of such words.

I don't hold the theological position that Christians are just perfected "Jews". Thusly, establishing the validity of "Judaism" as a meaningful representation of all things revealed as being truth in practice.

 

[Duane]

When a wrong definition gets popularized it does get confusing.

Some people think a "Christian" just means "a nice person."

"a nice person." who keeps a plastic Jesus figure on his dashboard,
I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car,
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nation
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far