1 What is a Messianic
DONNA DIORIO
In Response to James Trimm--
JT>From: b64...@utarlg.uta.edu (James Trimm)
JT>Date: 3 Jun 93 06:58:00 GMT
JT>Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
JT>Message-ID: <3JUN1993...@utarlg.uta.edu>
JT>>the Jerusalem Council which met to decide
JT>>what commandments must be observed by Gentile believers;
JT>
JT> Woaa... are you trying to convince us that Harvey Smith has the
JT>authority to make Halachic rulings?
JT> It really dosn't matter considering Shaul's description of this
JT>groups authority: "But those who SEEMED to be something --- whatever the
JT>were, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME; GOD SHOWS PERSONAL FAVORITISM TO NO
JT>MAN--- for those who SEEMED to be something ADDED NOTHING TO ME." (Gal.
JT>2:6 (Shaul's account of Acts 15)) They had halachic authority, so long a
JT>it was exercised in accordance with the Scriptures, but NO authority ove
JT>Shaul.
You are confusing groups, James. Sha'ul is referring to the "false
brethren" that came down from Judea (Acts 15:1-2) when he says in Gal
2:6, "for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me." Sha'ul
is NOT referring to the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem council
when he makes this remark, but rather he was submitted to their
authority. They made the trip to these apostles and elders in Jerusalem
for the specific purpose that they "should go up to Jerusalem unto the
apostles and elders ABOUT THIS QUESTION."
Sha'ul submitted himself to apostolic authority as is clear in his
Galn's statement--"And I went up BY REVELATION, and communicated unto
them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to
them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or
had run, in vain." -- Gal 2:2
Now did you catch that? BY REVELATION? You can certainly make a
case from SOME of Sha'ul's scriptural comments for being a renegade in
accountablity to no one, but Sha'ul himself was no unaccountable
renegade! He had a *revelation* of the necessity of accountabilty
within the body of Messiah. In spite of the "abundance of revelations"
which Sha'ul carried--perhaps more than any other of the apostles--
yet he still understood the necessity of accountability to others in
spiritual leadership.
JT> Boy if I had a nickle for everytime this verse was abused like this
JT> First of all, the KJV was paid for by the Church of England, which had
JT>eye on maintaining its sectarian authority... subsequent translations ha
Well, the validity of submission to authority is not wiped out by
even MUCH historic abuse, James. Like all spiritual things, there is
a balance.
Your translation of the Hebrews 13:17 does not wipe out authorial
intent. It is pretty clear that Sha'ul himself was submitted to
authority, and not merely just being "friendly" to those in the
Jerusalem council.
If you will do a study on "binding and loosing" you will see that
this judicial authority was transferred from the Sanhedrin to the
apostles (Matt 16, 18 and 21). Sha'ul understood that and willingly
submitted himself to it. Obviously, he also understood the balance
involved in not submitting to Peter's failure and error in this
incident, but by DUE PROCESS brought Peter to the acknowledging of the
truth.
--
DONNA DIORIO - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: DONNA....@f3021.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
James Trimm
Actually the phrase "seemed to be pillars" (Gal. 2:9 and the entire
context (Gal 2:2 for example) indicates that the group in Gal 2:6 is the
group in Acts 15:6. There was clearly a question of Halacha which the
council could answer.
> Sha'ul submitted himself to apostolic authority as is clear in his
>Galn's statement--"And I went up BY REVELATION, and communicated unto
>them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to
>them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or
>had run, in vain." -- Gal 2:2
Shaul did not submit himself to man (Gal 1:10-12, 16-17, 19, 2:6)
> If you will do a study on "binding and loosing" you will see that
>this judicial authority was transferred from the Sanhedrin to the
>apostles (Matt 16, 18 and 21). Sha'ul understood that and willingly
>submitted himself to it. Obviously, he also understood the balance
>involved in not submitting to Peter's failure and error in this
>incident, but by DUE PROCESS brought Peter to the acknowledging of the
>truth.
Here we basicly agree. The Nazarene Sanhedrin had the Halacha
authority. They had the power to determin Halacha and handle civil and
criminal disputes. (this is all outlined in tractate Sanhedrin). This
authority involves "s'mikhah" the laying on of hands to transfer
authority. One must have "s'mikhah" before giving it to someone else.
Do you know anyone with "s'mikhah" running back to Moses who recieved it
from G-d or the 12 who recieved it from Messiah (as indicated by the
wording of Mt. 18:18).
James Scott Trimm
> Harvey initiated a process of accountabilty. The judgment of Dan's
>own spiritual elders would not include Harvey. If someone initiated
>such a process against someone in Harvey's congregation, Harvey and the
>spiritual elders of that congregation would investigate the matter and
>render judgment--What they would permit and what they would forbid. You
>might want to obtain Dan Juster's "Due Process: A Plea for Biblical
>Justice Among God's People" if you truly want to understand.
I am very familier with the meaning of Mt. 18:18 but how did Harvey
and the UMJC end up getting this authority from the now defunct Nazarene
Sanhedrin?
>JT> The UMJC and IAMJCS are differant factions in the same Body, a cl
>JT> They are equally guilty of sectarianism. Does that make it ok?
> You are choosing specifically to single out the Messianic "factions"
>in your finger-pointing against sectarianism--that is what concerns me
>and especially because you are pushing "Nazarene Judaism" as THE answer
>to sectarianism among Jewish believers. This is really ridiculous when
>one looks at the big picture of all the schisms and factions within the
>body of Messiah! Your teachings against the Messianic movement in favor
>of "Nazarene Judaism" will NOT bring healing to divisions, but will only
>promote further division. I will continue in a 3rd post.
Actually, if you will actually READ "Apostasy and Restoration" you
will see that Gentile Christendom is the big target... I hardly single out
MJ.... I am a MJ as are all NJ's.
Shalom,
James Scott Trimm
>JT> Why... are the UMJC and IAMJC not factions? Are they not human
>JT>organizations containing both believers and mouth-only-professing non
>JT>believers yoking them together for a common cause? Whats so wrong with
>JT>coming out from sectarian human organizations and being seperate?
> You demand a strict adherence to biblical truth, James: Hear the
>word of the Lord in this matter--
> But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then
>appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and
>said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from
>whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.
>The servants said unto him, WILT THOU THEN THAT WE GO AND GATHER THEM
>UP?
> But he said, NAY; LEST WHILE YE GATHER UP THE TARES, YE ROOT UP
>ALSO THE WHEAT WITH THEM. -- Mat 13:26-29
You are using a "drosh" (ALLEGORICAL) argument to argue against a
"pashat" (literal) understanding. This dosn't work because "pashat"
understandings always hold priority, since "no passage loses its pashat"
(b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a).You cnnot use a drosh understanding of Mt.
13:26-29 to conflict with a pashat understanding of 2Cor 6:14-17.
I am uploading a file on this to clarify the point. One might just as
easily use the parable of Mt. 13:26-29 to prove that Dan should not have
been disfellowshiped from the "wheat".
>It is not necessary to disband all the denominations of the faith in
>order to cease from sectarianism. All you will accomplish is to set up
It is not necessary to abolish sects to end sectarianism? What an
absurd statement.
Donna,
I welcome your questions and am willing to teach (eph. 4:11-16)
and I am willing to recieve instruction from anyone qualified. However,
you falsely accused me of not being qualified on the basis of a false
claim that I was/am a Gentile, and that Gentiles (you seem to indiocate)
should not teach Jews.
Since you are now endeavouring to teach me, I must remind you that it
is not Scriptural for you, as a woman, to teach me, a man (1Tim. 2:12-14)
as a woman your teaching curriculum (spell?) is found in Titus 2:3-5, mine
is found in Eph. 4:11-16. There are an abundance of men on alt.messianic
which may do so, but you are not in scriptural grounds to teach me. (not
trying to be offencive).
Shalom,
James Scott Trimm