Starting around the 00:06:00 mark, Dr. Lancaster says that Beth Immanuel is unique because it is "an orthodox Messianic congregation," which he defines as "halachik Jews living halachik lives" and "halachikly orthodox." (Pardon the spelling of the "halacha" words.) My primary question about this is: Are you following the Halacha of Yeshua Messiah and his authorized teachers, the apostles, or are you following the Halacha of "the sages" from 100 CE - 500 CE most (all?) of which rejected their Messiah? I see a lot of references to "the sages" in FFOZ materials. I'm concerned there might be too much emphasis on the words of these individuals and not enough on the words of TaNaK and of Yeshua and his apostles in the Apostolic Writings.
A fully Christian Jewish halakhic tradition would be a lovely heritage for the original Christians to draw upon. Unfortunately, the ceasefire line between Christianity & Judaism allowed no space for Messianic Jewish practice. The heroes of our Christian tradition are on record forbidding it. It's telling that only Orthodox canon law preserves the Apostolic prohibition against gentiles eating blood, while the West has no treatment for this original apostolic halakhic decision. How can we preserve halakhah for Jewish practice, which we outlawed, when we didn't even preserve the Apostles prohibitions for gentiles?
Clarifying some of the terms will help with your question. Halachah is the tradition of how to carry out commandments of the Torah. We at FFOZ absolutely accept the halachah of Yeshua and his apostles as expressed in the New Testament. Note, however, that they were not overeager to innovate the halachah handed down to their generation-if they had been, the New Testament would have contained more notes on Torah observance. Yeshua corrects some practices of the Pharisees but says “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you” (Matthew 23:2-3). The apostles do flesh out how Gentiles exist within a Jewish movement (Acts 15), but even the decree there is based upon existing existing halachic conceptions of the Gentile living within the land of Israel (the ger toshav). Also note that the halachah of the sages passed on even to this day does not forbid belief in Yeshua. Certain passages in their writings seem to criticize him, but these are anecdotal, not halachic. Disciples of Yeshua should weigh anyone's teachings against Scripture, but traditional Jewish practice even today largely aligns with the teachings of the New Testament.
Also, regarding "interpreting Paul," I would highly recommend the work of Mark Nanos. I think he superbly argues for a "Paul Within Judaism" reading that is superior to the "New Perspective on Paul" reading, which it seems FFOZ favors.
Did I read that correctly? Are you saying FFOZ teaches a view closer to NPP than Nanos' Paul within Judaism? I'm familiar with the milieu, have listened to FFOZ for years, and can confirm they are much closer to Nanos than to Sanders or Wright. They have also advanced the conversation uniquely see Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology.
I have trouble seeing the brit'hadasah being ordained in the olam'haba. If that were the case, as a gentile I would not be able to be a part of the Mosaic covenant because I am not a sojourner in the land or have I been initiated into a tribe of Yakov as directed by the Torah. I feel like some of the brit is for the olam'hazeh and some prolepticly for the olam'haba. For example, in the Mosaic covenant, there is one Torah for native and sojourner. In the brit it's the same except instead of following the letter, we follow the one who the letter points to. Today, even though the name of Yahweh has been removed from our English translations, most of the world knows the name of the God of Avraham, Yitsach and Yakov and don't have to ask anyone. Today, most of us instinctively know in our conscience to keep the 10 devarim. Today, as confessors of the Messiah Yeshua we experience the Ruach. I feel like in the olam'haba, we will be in the perfect, glorified to walk in Torah without turning to the left or right. This is when we will be born again made of water and spirit to enter the Kingdom.
13:10 I am listening to guesses in who wrote Hebrews.....Because of the analogy of running the race to receive the prize which Paul used and knowing a lot of the priesthood, I have tended to think it was Barnabas as he was from the tribe of Levi.
I can’t wait to get this book! And Volume 2! Daniel’s teachings have solved so many theological problems for me. ❤
Thank You once again for these Podcasts. So enlightening and I always learn something new. Blessings
Our pleasure!
Starting around the 00:06:00 mark, Dr. Lancaster says that Beth Immanuel is unique because it is "an orthodox Messianic congregation," which he defines as "halachik Jews living halachik lives" and "halachikly orthodox." (Pardon the spelling of the "halacha" words.) My primary question about this is: Are you following the Halacha of Yeshua Messiah and his authorized teachers, the apostles, or are you following the Halacha of "the sages" from 100 CE - 500 CE most (all?) of which rejected their Messiah? I see a lot of references to "the sages" in FFOZ materials. I'm concerned there might be too much emphasis on the words of these individuals and not enough on the words of TaNaK and of Yeshua and his apostles in the Apostolic Writings.
A fully Christian Jewish halakhic tradition would be a lovely heritage for the original Christians to draw upon. Unfortunately, the ceasefire line between Christianity & Judaism allowed no space for Messianic Jewish practice. The heroes of our Christian tradition are on record forbidding it. It's telling that only Orthodox canon law preserves the Apostolic prohibition against gentiles eating blood, while the West has no treatment for this original apostolic halakhic decision. How can we preserve halakhah for Jewish practice, which we outlawed, when we didn't even preserve the Apostles prohibitions for gentiles?
Clarifying some of the terms will help with your question. Halachah is the tradition of how to carry out commandments of the Torah. We at FFOZ absolutely accept the halachah of Yeshua and his apostles as expressed in the New Testament. Note, however, that they were not overeager to innovate the halachah handed down to their generation-if they had been, the New Testament would have contained more notes on Torah observance. Yeshua corrects some practices of the Pharisees but says “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you” (Matthew 23:2-3). The apostles do flesh out how Gentiles exist within a Jewish movement (Acts 15), but even the decree there is based upon existing existing halachic conceptions of the Gentile living within the land of Israel (the ger toshav). Also note that the halachah of the sages passed on even to this day does not forbid belief in Yeshua. Certain passages in their writings seem to criticize him, but these are anecdotal, not halachic. Disciples of Yeshua should weigh anyone's teachings against Scripture, but traditional Jewish practice even today largely aligns with the teachings of the New Testament.
I've always considered it a disciple of Matthew.
Also, regarding "interpreting Paul," I would highly recommend the work of Mark Nanos. I think he superbly argues for a "Paul Within Judaism" reading that is superior to the "New Perspective on Paul" reading, which it seems FFOZ favors.
Did I read that correctly? Are you saying FFOZ teaches a view closer to NPP than Nanos' Paul within Judaism? I'm familiar with the milieu, have listened to FFOZ for years, and can confirm they are much closer to Nanos than to Sanders or Wright. They have also advanced the conversation uniquely see Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology.
I agree with TreBickley. Mark Nanos really opened my eyes up to Romans. I use to read NT Wright. I finally realized it was over-rated.
To be clear, we favor the Paul within Judaism reading of Nanos.
@@firstfruitsofzion Yay!
what us great, is jews beginning to read the new testament!!! rabbi daniel zion would have been happy.
I have trouble seeing the brit'hadasah being ordained in the olam'haba. If that were the case, as a gentile I would not be able to be a part of the Mosaic covenant because I am not a sojourner in the land or have I been initiated into a tribe of Yakov as directed by the Torah. I feel like some of the brit is for the olam'hazeh and some prolepticly for the olam'haba. For example, in the Mosaic covenant, there is one Torah for native and sojourner. In the brit it's the same except instead of following the letter, we follow the one who the letter points to. Today, even though the name of Yahweh has been removed from our English translations, most of the world knows the name of the God of Avraham, Yitsach and Yakov and don't have to ask anyone. Today, most of us instinctively know in our conscience to keep the 10 devarim. Today, as confessors of the Messiah Yeshua we experience the Ruach. I feel like in the olam'haba, we will be in the perfect, glorified to walk in Torah without turning to the left or right. This is when we will be born again made of water and spirit to enter the Kingdom.
13:10 I am listening to guesses in who wrote Hebrews.....Because of the analogy of running the race to receive the prize which Paul used and knowing a lot of the priesthood, I have tended to think it was Barnabas as he was from the tribe of Levi.
Interesting!
I think Luke wrote the Hebrew epistle
W O W!!!!
🙏
Jones Michelle Robinson Gary Perez Matthew
36:25 - you do have to trust the bible, why there's a new religion called xtianity