Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Efraim-Judah]

THE RABBI Yeshua's (also very much the Messiah) opinion, is not merely an opinion. It is Halacha.

That spits directly in the face of the tradition you claim to believe in.

Why? He correctly interpreted Torah.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

But not all who are in communion with the Pope of Rome are Roman Catholic, it is just factual wrong. Roman Catholic is just a designation who follows the Latin rite. Could you just add like "Greek Catholic Church" just to make a designation? Will that hurt you feelings?

Keep in mind that all the non-Latin-Rite Catholics, put together, are still smaller than any of the other denominations listed in the poll. The Catholic Church is 98-99% Latin Rite.

And I don't remember any Eastern Rite Catholics ever posting in the thread, either. Whereas we did have an Assyrian Christian posting here at one time. And yet his Church of the East is lumped together with the Oriental Orthodox on the poll, despite having the precise opposite Christology from them. That's what happens when we have a maximum of 10 poll options.

Poll options:
Just replace "Roman Catholic" with "Roman Catholic ETC", if any Uniates don't want to be associated with Rome, then they can tick "Other".

[Efraim-Judah]

From my contact with some of this group, it seems to me that they accept Jesus as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, so in my opinion that is all it takes to be "Christian". But they have no need for Paul, and much Protestant theology and doctrine is based upon Paul I am convinced my Presbyterian Pastor holds Paul in greater reverence than he does Jesus.

The distinction I'm making here is not a question of their faith or loyalty but of legal semantics.

Messianic Jews, believe Christ to be the Messiah, but approach him in the Context of the Mosaic Covenant. ex Efraim.

So they're Jews, who believe the Messiah has come in Christ.

Christianity approaches Christ in the Context of a New Covenant. This new Covenant is a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant, but a completely new Fresh Contract. They for lack of a better word dismiss the old covenant as having been fulfilled, completed, which in contract law means it's no longer binding. We have a new binding Contract, outside the Mosaic Covenant, so to identify Christians as Jews, would be incorrect.

The term Christian is more than just "one who follows Christ" but is one who enters into this New Covenant.

Most Christians fail to enter into this covenant, because the 'New Covenant' is just an extension of the ''Old Covenant' to gentiles.

[Conscentia]

That spits directly in the face of the tradition you claim to believe in.

Why? He correctly interpreted Torah.

Judaism disagrees.

[Efraim-Judah]

Why? He correctly interpreted Torah.

Judaism disagrees.

Actually no it doesn't. All of Messiah's teachings are either taken from other Rabbi's or are now halacha.

[Menassa]

Judaism disagrees.

Actually no it doesn't. All of Messiah's teachings are either taken from other Rabbi's or are now halacha.

Yeah like not divorcing... that's defiantly Halacha.

Halcha is Jewish Law, Jesus didn't really attempt to recourse on Jewish Law.

[Menassa]

That spits directly in the face of the tradition you claim to believe in.

Why? He correctly interpreted Torah.

Nope. Jewish Halacha says to go after the majority opinion, and the majority opinion of Rabbis do not believe in Jesus's teachings.

Additionally what about Divorce?

[Efraim-Judah]

Why? He correctly interpreted Torah.

Nope. Jewish Halacha says to go after the majority opinion, and the majority opinion of Rabbis do not believe in Jesus's teachings.

Additionally what about Divorce?

Yeshua then said, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

[Menassa]

Nope. Jewish Halacha says to go after the majority opinion, and the majority opinion of Rabbis do not believe in Jesus's teachings.

Additionally what about Divorce?

Yeshua then said, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

And the Torah says that the Divorce is because she does not find favor with him... nothing to do with immorality. As well the Talmud lists cases of Divorces for all reasons including burning food.

Jesus speaks against the Talmud here and the Torah.

How long will you waver between two opinions?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

And I don't remember any Eastern Rite Catholics ever posting in the thread, either. Whereas we did have an Assyrian Christian posting here at one time. And yet his Church of the East is lumped together with the Oriental Orthodox on the poll, despite having the precise opposite Christology from them. That's what happens when we have a maximum of 10 poll options.

We have had at least one Eastern Rite Catholic in these threads - one who was under the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch.

Happily, he saw the error of his ways, and decided to return home to the Orthodox Church.

aw what

[Efraim-Judah]

Yeshua then said, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

And the Torah says that the Divorce is because she does not find favor with him... nothing to do with immorality. As well the Talmud lists cases of Divorces for all reasons including burning food.

Jesus speaks against the Talmud here and the Torah.

How long will you waver between two opinions?

Rabbi Yeshua actually takes the opinion of Shammai, as it is written: Beth Shammai says, A man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct.

[Menassa]

And the Torah says that the Divorce is because she does not find favor with him... nothing to do with immorality. As well the Talmud lists cases of Divorces for all reasons including burning food.

Jesus speaks against the Talmud here and the Torah.

How long will you waver between two opinions?

Rabbi Yeshua actually takes the opinion of Shammai, as it is written: Beth Shammai says, A man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct.

Assuming that's true, the Law would be in accordance to Beth Hillel anyway as it usually is. And then again Beth Shammai existed years before the advent of Jesus so Jesus is just quoting the dissenting (that is, rejected) opinion of the Pharisees seems like a pretty stupid move.

[Menassa]

Which is back to the point that Jesus statements said by Jesus don't actually require his validity.

[Efraim-Judah]

Which is back to the point that Jesus statements said by Jesus don't actually require his validity.

Exactly! He explicitly stated he wasn't creating any new religion and didn't speak his own words but the words of Adonai.

[Menassa]

Which is back to the point that Jesus statements said by Jesus don't actually require his validity.

Exactly! He explicitly stated he wasn't creating any new religion and didn't speak his own words but the words of Adonai.

So why follow Jesus if he is just a cut-and-paste of older Rabbis?

You have certainly not proven he was the Messiah, and you have certainly not proven anything regarding a 'new covenant.'

[Efraim-Judah]

Exactly! He explicitly stated he wasn't creating any new religion and didn't speak his own words but the words of Adonai.

So why follow Jesus if he is just a cut-and-paste of older Rabbis?

You have certainly not proven he was the Messiah, and you have certainly not proven anything regarding a 'new covenant.'

Where is it written that Messiah would counter the rulings of prior Rabbis? Nowhere. Messiah was a Rabbi of his time.

[Menassa]

So why follow Jesus if he is just a cut-and-paste of older Rabbis?

You have certainly not proven he was the Messiah, and you have certainly not proven anything regarding a 'new covenant.'

Where is it written that Messiah would counter the rulings of prior Rabbis? Nowhere. Messiah was a Rabbi of his time.

Your Messiah supports the unaccepted ruling of a Rabbi #1.

#2 None of this proves that he was the Messiah still...

[Efraim-Judah]

Where is it written that Messiah would counter the rulings of prior Rabbis? Nowhere. Messiah was a Rabbi of his time.

Your Messiah supports the unaccepted ruling of a Rabbi #1.

#2 None of this proves that he was the Messiah still...

I believe the Messiah was probably referring to Deuteronomy 24:2-4 in this situation as well.

[Menassa]

Your Messiah supports the unaccepted ruling of a Rabbi #1.

#2 None of this proves that he was the Messiah still...

I believe the Messiah was probably referring to Deuteronomy 24:2-4 in this situation as well.

That's not what he says though.

You can 'believe' whatever you wish, but if he was referring to that he would have made it clear... unless your Messiah wants his followers to guess for him, therefore leaving your interpretation that verse to be no greater than Tarsonis's or Distruzio's or Herkerstad's.

[Murkwood]

It's 613.

And these same Pharisees of which Jesus accepted their traditions.

Exactly. Yeshua was a Pharisee.

You seem to be forgetting one important quote from Matthew 23:24.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

[Menassa]

Exactly. Yeshua was a Pharisee.

You seem to be forgetting one important quote from Matthew 23:24.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Eh, before that he says to listen to the Pharisees so....

[Efraim-Judah]

Exactly. Yeshua was a Pharisee.

You seem to be forgetting one important quote from Matthew 23:24.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

He actually says to accept their interpretation. He condemns them for being hypocritical.

[Conscentia]

Perhaps your discussion belongs of the JDT, rather than the CDT?

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

I believe the Messiah was probably referring to Deuteronomy 24:2-4 in this situation as well.

That's not what he says though.

You can 'believe' whatever you wish, but if he was referring to that he would have made it clear... unless your Messiah wants his followers to guess for him, therefore leaving your interpretation that verse to be no greater than Tarsonis's or Distruzio's or Herkerstad's.

I believe the Messiah was probably referring to Deuteronomy 24:2-4 in this situation as well.
No. Deuteronomy - Devarim was written 600 BC ish, when the Kohanim of the Temple were the priests of Judaism. Rabbis only became the priests of Judaism after 550 BC ish when the Temple had been destroyed and Judaism needed to be rebuilt from the remnants.

Deuteronomy was written before there were any Rabbis. Deuteronomy only refers to Kohanim.Rabbis can be of ANY tribe. A learned momzer is better than an illiterate High Priest. Jesus is sorta kinda House of David < tribe of Judah whereas Kohanim must be tribe of Levi; Jesus fits Rabbinism closer than Deutronomism.

Poll options:
I post on the Jewish thread, but I do not tick any denomination because there is no "Not a Jew, but interested" option.

CDT thread has the option "Restorationist LDS, JW etc" ie "Not a Christian, but interested". so tack on "Messianic" to that ETC.

[Angleter]

Can I ask the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic peoples here what are the differences between Catholic and Orthodox practices and liturgy?

That's a tricky one. There are Byzantine Rite Catholics whose liturgical practices are more or less identical to Orthodox ones (save for some imports from the Roman Rite, which are frowned upon by the hierarchy). The main difference, therefore, would be that while the Orthodox Church has one single rite (the Byzantine Rite, in Catholic parlance), the Catholic Church has many - there's the dominant Roman Rite (with a number of localised 'uses' and two universal 'forms'), several other Latin Rites used in certain localities (such as Milan's Ambrosian Rite) and certain religious orders (such as the Dominican Rite), as well as the rites specific to Eastern Catholic churches (Byzantine Rite, Maronite Rite, etc.).

But then in the Byzantine Rite (and perhaps other Eastern ones), there are different Divine Liturgies (i.e. the liturgy has different prayers) at different times in the year. And the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has a variety of different prayer options. And massive stylistic differences within the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Really, I'd say the best way to identify the differences between the rites (and forms and uses) is to watch videos of them (or attend them, if at all possible). Here's a few:

Byzantine Rite - Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in English (this seems to be by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)
Roman Rite (Ordinary Form) in English (this Mass is said in a more conservative style)
Roman Rite (Ordinary Form) in English (this Mass is said in a more liberal style)