FFOZ publications

Page 2 of 3 (44 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 43 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 14 2013 4:35 PM

David Paul:

No frustration here. It doesn't matter to me if anyone either does or doesn't choose to see things as I do. That said, I'm not sure how up to speed you are on George's fascination with "disagreeing" with me at nearly every opportunity...though "jab" is probably a more accurate verb. If he were calling me "ugly", "fat", or "stupid", I would likely just ignore him...turn the other cheek and all that. But I don't consider myself to have that luxury where truth-related issues are concerned. Giving no response is akin to giving the impression that one has no response...and that isn't only not true, it is a false impression.

 

Zip it!

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 15 2013 6:50 PM

David Paul:
I'm not sure how up to speed you are on George's fascination with "disagreeing" with me at nearly every opportunity...

I'm not party to your dialogue with George.  All I can say is that seeing contrarian views is a part of discussion and debate; a natural dialectic.  Based on the nature of the many posts of his I have seen, I would be surprised that George would intend that his comments were meant to offend you.

David Paul:
would you also accuse Yeishuu`a of haranguing the Pharisees?

There are times when discussions take a robust tone.  But more often than not, Jesus spoke plainly but not in a way intended to anger others.  See Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger".

David Paul:
FFOZ's broad undercurrent (and occasionally openly expressed perspective) that Yeishuu`a was a Pharisee, and that he had no real disagreement with the Pharisees on any topic of significance.

I don't think FFOZ's position is what you say.  They point out that

  1. Many aspects of Jesus' theology aligned with that of the Pharisees (such as life after death, resurrection of the dead)
  2. Not all Pharisees were closed to what Jesus had to say (see Nicodemus); and
  3. Many Pharisees had joined Jesus' movement and counted themselves as His followers.

FFOZ are not saying that he didn't have points of disagreements with the Pharisees and that some aspects of Pharisaical teaching were debatable.  But then we could say that about any theologian past or present.  Today to be called a Pharisee is to be vilified.  Yet there are many aspects of Pharisaical teaching that is worthy of merit.  FFOZ is saying that you can't paint every Pharisee with the same brush.  Its not as simple as that.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 15 2013 9:26 PM

Q: What does the word "Pharisee" have in common with the words "harlot" and "Moabite"?

A: They are used to describe those whose lifestyle changed drastically, even to the point where the word in fact no longer truly applied, and yet the word continued to be used to describe these individuals. Why? To be a testimony to what they came out of.

The first example is Rahab...the HARLOT. She is in the ancestry of Yeishuu`a, and yet even long after His death and resurrection, she is referred to as "the harlot" in Hebrews 11:31. So, after the events recorded in Judges, was she still a (practicing) harlot? The only legitimate answer is "no". Why then is she still called "harlot" in the NT? Just as I said above--to show the power of repentance, redemption, and adoption.

The same is true for Ruth...she continues to be referred to as "the Moabitess". However, that is impossible--Tohraah forbids the entrance of Moabites into the covenant community. Boaz could not marry her if she were considered a Moabitess in the sight of the Law. But just like Rahab's stain of harlotry was erased by her repentance and conversion to covenant obedience, so it was true of Ruth. She repented of her condition as a Moabite...she literally ceased to be a Moabitess when she spoke the words "your God shall be my God". 

Being a Pharisee was pretty much the same as being a harlot. Spiritually, they are one and the same. Being a Pharisee was also like being a Moabite...a person can't be one and be in covenant community with YHWH/Yeishuu`a...the concepts are mutually exclusive. The entire conceptual identity of Pharisaism is BOUND to תורה שבעל פה, the oral law, especially since it was the oral law alone which gave them any credibility as leaders. Tanakh is absolutely silent with regard to the Pharisees. The oral law, by fundamental principle, is anit-thetical to Tohraah. Deut. 4:2, 12:32 So anyone who is referred to as being a follower of Yeishuu`a by definition cannot be a Pharisee. This is why every single communication Yeishuu`a spoke regarding the Pharisees was derogatory and condemnatory.

Tony Kan:

Today to be called a Pharisee is to be vilified.  Yet there are many aspects of Pharisaical teaching that is worthy of merit.  FFOZ is saying that you can't paint every Pharisee with the same brush.  Its not as simple as that.

My response to those four sentences are

  • rightly so
  • name one
  • you can and must
  • it certainly is.

Nicodemus, to take a single example, could not remain a Pharisee if he wished to be a disciple of Yeishuu`a, any more than Rahab could remain a harlot or Ruth a Moabitess. Tohraah forbids the very concept. Those aspects of who they "had been" remained in the grave with all their other sins at Yeishuu`a's resurrection and they each had to walk in newness of life.

FFOZ and other Messianic Jewish organizations live under the false impression that the only thing Judaism lacks is the identity of their Messiah. In reality, the problem is much deeper than that--it is wholly systemic, a result of the whole cloth, out-of-thin-air fabrication of תורה שבעל פה with its YHWH-defying, Law-cancelling takkanot. The problem is foundational and requires a new foundation be laid.

All that said, I fully support their inclusion in Logos, if Boaz Michael and the others wish to do so.

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 16 2013 3:09 PM

David Paul:

Q: What does the word "Pharisee" have in common with the words "harlot" and "Moabite"?

A: They are used to describe those whose lifestyle changed drastically, even to the point where the word in fact no longer truly applied, and yet the word continued to be used to describe these individuals. Why? To be a testimony to what they came out of.

Paul continued to count himself as a Pharisee long after he became a follower of Jesus.  Acts records that Pharisees were also followers.  I see no evidence from the Scriptures that forbids Pharisees from following God or Jesus or requiring Pharisaism to be repudiated before one can be a follower.

David Paul:

Tony Kan:
Today to be called a Pharisee is to be vilified.  Yet there are many aspects of Pharisaical teaching that is worthy of merit.  FFOZ is saying that you can't paint every Pharisee with the same brush.  Its not as simple as that.

My response to those four sentences are

  • rightly so
  • name one
  • you can and must
  • it certainly is.

"Rightly so" can only be correct if you believe that everything they taught was incorrect, evil or has no worth.

"Name one":  Gamaliel taught that the law should protect women during divorce, and that, for the purpose of re-marriage, a single witness was sufficient evidence for the death of a husband.  Gamaliel was named by Paul as one of his tutors.  According to the Eastern Orthodox church, Gamaliel followed Jesus yet remained a Pharisee and a senior member of the Sanhedrin until his death.

David Paul:
FFOZ and other Messianic Jewish organizations live under the false impression that the only thing Judaism lacks is the identity of their Messiah

FFOZ's view of Judaism is more nuanced than that.  FFOZ recognizes that Halacha or common law rulings are important and a necessary part of scriptural interpretation and jurisprudence.  FFOZ take similar positions to that of Jesus in his attitude to the Pharisees in that Jesus took issue with some of their rulings.  Although there are many instances of Jesus' criticisms of these rulings, he never once questions their right to make them in the first place and in fact enjoins believers to follow them.

You are right in saying there is something systematically wrong but I differ in the diagnosis.  Some Pharisees had departed from a purposive interpretation of the Scriptures and in so doing, were producing rulings which contradicted other scriptures.  The discussion regarding Corban is a case in point.  Another example is the discussion regarding the minutia over Sabbatical regulations.

Posts 18712
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 16 2013 3:21 PM

Of all the different sects in the time of Jesus (Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, Sadducees), the Pharisees are the ones modern Christians tend to have the most in common with. Thinking we've got it right and are closer to God than everyone else, trying to "be good" to earn God's favor. Jesus' excoriations of the Pharisees should make us wax introspective and see whether we're being Pharisaical. Yes, they were probably the nicest people at the time, and got a lot of things right (it is good to "be good" though we can't do so on our own strength), but they missed the boat in a big way, which is a very real temptation for us today.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 16 2013 5:42 PM

Tony Kan:

Paul continued to count himself as a Pharisee long after he became a follower of Jesus.  Acts records that Pharisees were also followers.  I see no evidence from the Scriptures that forbids Pharisees from following God or Jesus or requiring Pharisaism to be repudiated before one can be a follower.

שׁאול is שׁאול --so be it.

The Pharisees you mention in Acts fall under the Rahab/Ruth understanding I outlined above. The "evidence from Scripture" is what I quoted above--namely, Deut. 4:2 & 12:32. I'm always shocked at how little historical awareness Messianics, of all people, have regarding the genesis of the Pharisaic phenomenon. The Pharisees existed for one reason only--to promote the oral law...and the oral law existed for one reason only--to support the Pharisees. No doubt, after a limited passage of time, some of the Pharisees actually began to believe in the validity of their own fiction, but the illegitimacy of the entire concept did not and cannot ever be made to dissipate and disappear. The Pharisaic concoction of the "oral tradition" in its conception, warp and woof is nothing less than brazen idolatry of the purest sort, particularly in that they completely skipped the wood, silver, and gold of Jer. 10, fashioned in the form of imaginary beings, and simply made themselves (in the form or their own proclamations and judgments) the object of their obedience and worship.

Tony Kan:

David Paul:

Tony Kan:
Today to be called a Pharisee is to be vilified.  Yet there are many aspects of Pharisaical teaching that is worthy of merit.  FFOZ is saying that you can't paint every Pharisee with the same brush.  Its not as simple as that.

My response to those four sentences are

  • rightly so
  • name one
  • you can and must
  • it certainly is.

"Rightly so" can only be correct if you believe that everything they taught was incorrect, evil or has no worth.

The fact that a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean that is isn't worthless. The perspective, voiced above by MJ in one of its many permutations, which suggests that nuggets may occasionally be found in unexpected places is valid enough...but it doesn't mean that an occasional nugget found is indication of a rich vein of ore. Your dog may swallow your wedding ring, thus requiring you to dig and mash through its "business" to retrieve it. However, once successfully retrieved, it would be pure folly to conclude that you should spend your time mashing through all the "business" you can get your hands on, wherever it might come from, in hopes of finding more golden treasures.

The corruption of the Pharisees' raison d'être is sufficient reason to dismiss their ways wholesale, in the same way YHWH told the Israelites to "dismiss" and "learn not" the ways of the heathen who were being dispossessed before them.

But, wait...couldn't we possibly learn something from them? You can learn from everyone, can't you? Yes, of course...which is precisely why YHWH told Y'hohshu`a that they were supposed to be obliterated from existence.

Tony Kan:

"Name one":  Gamaliel taught that the law should protect women during divorce, and that, for the purpose of re-marriage, a single witness was sufficient evidence for the death of a husband.  Gamaliel was named by Paul as one of his tutors.  According to the Eastern Orthodox church, Gamaliel followed Jesus yet remained a Pharisee and a senior member of the Sanhedrin until his death.

Gamaliel had ZERO AUTHORITY to change the law of YHWH in that regard...but it is no doubt a very Pharisaic thing to do. Paul himself insists in 2 Cor. 13:1-2 that his saying something 2-3 times counts as 2-3 witnesses, even though Deut. 19:15 states in the clearest possible terms that such a perspective is exactly what that part of the law was written to counteract...which is all the more the case since "sin" is precisely the subject of both the Deuteronomy edict and Paul's pronouncement. Ooops!

The Eastern Orthodox church may proclaim such a tradition, but upon what is it based? Where is the evidence? I seriously doubt it exists.

Tony Kan:

David Paul:
FFOZ and other Messianic Jewish organizations live under the false impression that the only thing Judaism lacks is the identity of their Messiah

FFOZ's view of Judaism is more nuanced than that. 

...and some people have a nuanced view of Nazism. Occasionally, nuance simply cannot help.

Tony Kan:

FFOZ recognizes that Halacha or common law rulings are important and a necessary part of scriptural interpretation and jurisprudence. 

...and if the Pharisees were priests, then "perhaps" their opinions would matter. But with the rarest of exceptions, they weren't. And the point that the Pharisees and the rabbis completely overlook(ed) is that all cases are to be judged on their own merits ALWAYS. Tohraah ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS that anyone at anytime can make a judgment of law that as a result becomes a stipulation of law. To do so would be to again violate Deut. 4:2  and Deut. 12:32. Also, the vast majority of legal rulings were supposed to be settled long before a matter ended up in front of a priest. Matt. 18 builds upon the concept of judges of 10's and 50's and 100's.

What I'm saying is this...most halakha VIOLATES TOHRAAH by its very existence.

Tony Kan:

FFOZ take similar positions to that of Jesus in his attitude to the Pharisees in that Jesus took issue with some of their rulings.  Although there are many instances of Jesus' criticisms of these rulings, he never once questions their right to make them in the first place and in fact enjoins believers to follow them.

That is absolutely FALSE, as my comments about Mk. 7:14 below will show.

I'm pretty close to 100% sure FFOZ says Yeishuu`a was a Pharisee. I've read it in their own literature. As such, they completely misapply Yeishuu`a's words about "do as they say but not as they do"....

Question: What if a Pharisee were to actually do what he said...what then? Would you do what he said or not as he did? Hmmmm. Blue screen... Computer

There is really only one way to comprehend what Yeishuua said there...and it accords essentially with the Hebrew Shem Tov translation of Matthew. (I'm surprised that you seem to be unfamiliar with Shem Tov Matthew, or maybe you just discount it. The folks at FFOZ do.) Put succinctly, the operative assumption of the reader should be that "when sitting in Moses's seat" what they say will fully agree with what Moses said. Any other understanding is an inherent contradiction on many levels. FFOZ and Messianic Judaism in general insist that Yeishuu`a was advocating doing what the Pharisees taught even when it clearly contradicts Moses and the Tanakh. They may try to tweak that a bit (the "nuance" you refer to), but the fact is its very hard to shine a turd...

...and the blue screen of "does not compute" isn't called the Blue Screen of Death for no reason.

Tony Kan:

You are right in saying there is something systematically wrong but I differ in the diagnosis.  Some Pharisees had departed from a purposive interpretation of the Scriptures and in so doing, were producing rulings which contradicted other scriptures.  The discussion regarding Corban is a case in point.  Another example is the discussion regarding the minutia over Sabbatical regulations.

These which you just mentioned were not the exceptions...they were the rule(s). Hundreds and thousands of them. And the most egregious were the takkanot...where they deliberately and purposefully set aside YHWH's clear words in order to command observance of their own...quite like what Gamaliel did in your example above. (The posture that some will try to take is that Gamaliel and his Pharisee ilk were being more compassionate than YHWH had been. That is not just a slippery slope--it is a deadly one.)

The interesting thing about the qorbaan quote from Mk. 7:14 is that Yeishuu`a clearly "up-ends" any impression (you know, Tony, like the impression you stated above, that Yeishuu`a "never once questions their right to make them") that the things the Pharisees "say" is something that He agrees with. He clearly says their words "set aside" and "invalidate" Tohraah. Should we do what they say anyway??? Yeishuu`a (within the pericope) doesn't appear to explicitly say we shouldn't, does He? Peter settles this issue: Acts 5:29.

Just to repeat for the sake of clarity...Pharisaism is in toto an ontological violation of Tohraah. That is an inescapable fact.

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 16 2013 7:28 PM

David Paul:
The Pharisees you mention in Acts fall under the Rahab/Ruth understanding I outlined above.

Yes, it does under your formulation.  Yet the authority of this formulation, in my view, even based on what you have said, however strongly, has yet to be established. 

David Paul:
The Pharisees existed for one reason only--to promote the oral law...and the oral law existed for one reason only--to support the Pharisees.

Jesus did not dispute the need for an oral law.  Rather, Jesus disputed some of the rulings that had come to prevail in His time. 

The existence of Pharisaism could be attributed to a number of causes.  For example, Pharisaism can be said to be a counterbalance to the Sadduceean school. The counterbalancing effect can be seen at multiple levels:  doctrinally, economically and culturally.

The Sadducees, as you do, opposed the Oral Law tradition and in this they shared the same view as Karaite Judaism. 

Yet in every system of law, there must be principles of interpretation in order to make practical application.  Some of those principles find expression in additional sets of rulings and laws.  A church constitution is an example.  Driving on one side of the road is another.

Whether this oral law should take precedence over the written law is another question.  On this issue, Jesus' position can be discerned from his own words (Matt 5:17) and his argumentation which was to defend the written law when the oral law contradicted it.

David Paul:

The corruption of the Pharisees' raison d'être is sufficient reason to dismiss their ways wholesale, in the same way YHWH told the Israelites to "dismiss" and "learn not" the ways of the heathen who were being dispossessed before them.

I believe that in taking this position, you are going beyond what Jesus intended.  Jesus did not dismiss the Pharisees.  He engaged them in discussion and debate.  And as I have said, many of his views were shared by them.

David Paul:

But, wait...couldn't we possibly learn something from them? You can learn from everyone, can't you? Yes, of course...which is precisely why YHWH told Y'hohshu`a that they were supposed to be obliterated from existence.

So wait, are you advocating genocide? Interestingly, the Sadducees (with whom you appear to be in agreement) did not obliterate the Pharisees and they co-existed on the Sanhedrin together with other Pharisees.

Be aware that your strident tone can leave readers concluding that you are intending to create an "oral law" of your own -- by strength of will, rather than by strength of argument. 

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 17 2013 9:04 AM

David Paul:
Gamaliel had ZERO AUTHORITY to change the law of YHWH in that regard

In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1).

Consequently, Gamaliel did not change the Law of God.  The OT applied the idea of two or three witnesses as an evidential threshold for obtaining criminal convictions.   It was the Oral Law that took this principle and applied it to other situations where testimonial evidence would be useful, in this case, the confirmation of the death of a husband.  Gamaliel was merely recommending an adjustment to Oral Law.  Therefore, for you, this recommendation should be obiter dicta. 

Posts 161
David Roberts | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 17 2013 10:23 PM

Hi David,

May I ask you, does the written Tora command the tithing of herbs? If so, could you please show me which verse teaches this? Thanks.

Posts 8601
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 7:00 AM

Gentlemen, we have left behind the discussion of Logos. The Forum Guidelines request that we abstain from the sort of debate this is becoming. 

I humbly suggest you find another location to continue this discussion. (Even though I'm enjoying it and really wanted to comment. Zip it!)

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 7:27 AM

David Roberts:

Hi David,

May I ask you, does the written Tora command the tithing of herbs? If so, could you please show me which verse teaches this? Thanks.

David...

Lev. 27:30, Deut. 14:22, Neh. 10:37

Herbs come from "the field" and "the land/ground"...hence a tithe of "the field" and of "the land/ground" would include them.

Smile

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 7:31 AM

TCBlack:

Gentlemen, we have left behind the discussion of Logos. The Forum Guidelines request that we abstain from the sort of debate this is becoming. 

I humbly suggest you find another location to continue this discussion. (Even though I'm enjoying it and really wanted to comment. Zip it!)

I was halfway through a response that would have put and end to this dispute forever and for all time...

Oh well, guess I'll just hit DELETE and let the acrimony continue...

p.s. -- The 2-3 witnesses isn't about "crime" (translating it that way is a crime of translation)...it is about ANY matter that is Tohraah related.

Posts 8601
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 7:40 AM

David Paul:
I was halfway through a response that would have put and end to this dispute forever and for all time...
LOL, I'm sorry David, I have done that many times myself. Deleting your magnum opus is hard.

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 8:09 AM

David Paul:

שׁאול is שׁאול --so be it.

What is necessary to circumvent the microbial-sized font of the Hebrew above? I have seen others include Hebrew in posts that is both legible in size and is more palatable in appearance, such as the SIL Hebrew font. Nothing I do seems to affect the nano-scratch that is in my posts. Thanks.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 8:14 AM

David Paul:

David Paul:

שׁאול is שׁאול --so be it.

What is necessary to circumvent the microbial-sized font of the Hebrew above? I have seen others include Hebrew in posts that is both legible in size and is more palatable in appearance, such as the SIL Hebrew font. Nothing I do seems to affect the nano-scratch that is in my posts. Thanks.

Highlight the text then choose "times NR" in "Font Family" and increase the size to at least 14 pt.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 1:00 PM


Hmmm...not sure I have that option for whatever reason. I don't see a font choice option on my toolbar. Sad

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 1:20 PM

David Paul:


Hmmm...not sure I have that option for whatever reason. I don't see a font choice option on my toolbar. Sad

ברֻך אתה אלהים מלך העולם

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 5:23 PM

David Paul:
I'm surprised that you seem to be unfamiliar with Shem Tov Matthew, or maybe you just discount it.

I have not previously discussed the Shem Tov Matthew with you.  It has not arisen in our discussion before.  I have no idea how you have any knowledge of my level of familiarity or my views on its credibility.  Perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else?Hmm

Posts 232
Genghis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 18 2013 5:29 PM

TCBlack:

Gentlemen, we have left behind the discussion of Logos. The Forum Guidelines request that we abstain from the sort of debate this is becoming. 

I humbly suggest you find another location to continue this discussion. (Even though I'm enjoying it and really wanted to comment. Zip it!)

Fair point.  Thanks for point it out.  Over and out.  Smile

Posts 33
Daryle Froese | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 12 2015 8:28 AM

Any developments on First Fruits of Zion (Torah Club, etc.) materials being made available on Logos?

Page 2 of 3 (44 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS