A ? about messianic jews.

[A.W. Bowman]

To the issues:

Question: What is ‘wrong’ with removing “… the battle over Oneness doctrine from the Tanakh”, if that battle does not actually exist in God’s eyes? That is, what if that is the wrong battle to be engaged in?

An interesting observation: “We Oneness Christians accept IT [the oneness of God] as the revelation of God to the Jewish people nothing else.” I don’t think anyone will have a problem with that statement. However, the Old Covenant text never speaks about the ‘singularity’ of God, just that God is ‘one’ God, not just one of many gods or even as simply the leader of gods. Yet, an explanation of the nature of God is not included in these same scriptures, so there is where often times well meaning men get into the act. It is when we men decide to add to the revelation that the one true God of Israel is the only true God, period, end of discussion, that we run into trouble. When we add anything to the fact that God is but one God we must do violence to the word of God. In the English translations of the Holy Scripture, we read time and time again that the Jews, and by extension the entire world, are commanded to worship the one true, singular God of Israel. So, what s the problem? The problem is that we have stepped beyond scripture and decided to interpret ‘oneness’ scriptures according to our own understanding and imaginations. That is, there is no scripture a ‘oneness’ scripture (in English) will contain any description of God concerning His essentials of deity, elements of composition, descriptions of His modes and methods of existence or even the exact manner of how God relates to all of His creation. What we have are simple examples of who and what God is, and a great many instruction on how He expects us to conduct ourselves.

Then, there is the question of, “Many are trying to destroy the Oneness faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles.” This is similar to the controversy between living under grace and living under the law. As Paul noted in Romans 3, 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 [is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law [Torah] through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law [Torah]. [KJV]

Testing to see if something is true is not an attempt to destroy, but to establish. Even if that is the case, then the question that comes to mind is this, “Why ‘test’ something that has been accepted by our spiritual leaders and teachers, for have they not also discovered, examined, tested and established the acceptable apostolic doctrines?” If a doctrinal position is correct (established in scripture) then why not simply accept it, as is? Because in many instances, while the position may be correct, the arguments used to support (or defend) the position have been all too frequently twisted in meaning or misdirected in their application from their original intent. This practice results in the scriptures losing their authority because they are only open to the preacher’s interpretation – not yours. This means that one cannot read and study the scriptures for themselves, without getting the pastor’s approval on what the individual comes up with. What is wrong with that approach? This leaves the Holy Ghost out of the equation, unless, of course, the Spirit of God will only teach and guide the senior pastor (everything must first come through him). The corollary problem is the willful ignoring of scriptures that seem to challenge or even contradict the selected doctrinal support verses. These verses are most often excluded from the scriptural list for any given doctrine.

Example: Galatians 2:16 (KJV)
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

And, we know how Abraham is held up as our model for a man of faith. Yet, if one reads Genesis 26:1-6 we find a different picture of Abraham than what is usually presented from most platforms.

[A.W. Bowman]

To the issues:

Question: What is ‘wrong’ with removing “… the battle over Oneness doctrine from the Tanakh”, if that battle does not actually exist in God’s eyes? That is, what if that is the wrong battle to be engaged in?

An interesting observation: “We Oneness Christians accept IT [the oneness of God] as the revelation of God to the Jewish people nothing else.” I don’t think anyone will have a problem with that statement. However, the Old Covenant text never speaks about the ‘singularity’ of God, just that God is ‘one’ God, not just one of many gods or even as simply the leader of gods. Yet, an explanation of the nature of God is not included in these same scriptures, so there is where often times well meaning men get into the act. It is when we men decide to add to the revelation that the one true God of Israel is the only true God, period, end of discussion, that we run into trouble. When we add anything to the fact that God is but one God we must do violence to the word of God. In the English translations of the Holy Scripture, we read time and time again that the Jews, and by extension the entire world, are commanded to worship the one true, singular God of Israel. So, what s the problem? The problem is that we have stepped beyond scripture and decided to interpret ‘oneness’ scriptures according to our own understanding and imaginations. That is, there is no scripture a ‘oneness’ scripture (in English) will contain any description of God concerning His essentials of deity, elements of composition, descriptions of His modes and methods of existence or even the exact manner of how God relates to all of His creation. What we have are simple examples of who and what God is, and a great many instruction on how He expects us to conduct ourselves.

Then, there is the question of, “Many are trying to destroy the Oneness faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles.” This is similar to the controversy between living under grace and living under the law. As Paul noted in Romans 3, 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 [is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law [Torah] through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law [Torah]. [KJV]

Testing to see if something is true is not an attempt to destroy, but to establish. Even if that is the case, then the question that comes to mind is this, “Why ‘test’ something that has been accepted by our spiritual leaders and teachers, for have they not also discovered, examined, tested and established the acceptable apostolic doctrines?” If a doctrinal position is correct (established in scripture) then why not simply accept it, as is? Because in many instances, while the position may be correct, the arguments used to support (or defend) the position have been all too frequently twisted in meaning or misdirected in their application from their original intent. This practice results in the scriptures losing their authority because they are only open to the preacher’s interpretation – not yours. This means that one cannot read and study the scriptures for themselves, without getting the pastor’s approval on what the individual comes up with. What is wrong with that approach? This leaves the Holy Ghost out of the equation, unless, of course, the Spirit of God will only teach and guide the senior pastor (everything must first come through him). The corollary problem is the willful ignoring of scriptures that seem to challenge or even contradict the selected doctrinal support verses. These verses are most often excluded from the scriptural list for any given doctrine.

Example: Galatians 2:16 (KJV)
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

And, we know how Abraham is held up as our model for a man of faith. Yet, if one reads Genesis 26:1-6 we find a different picture of Abraham than what is usually presented from most platforms.

[A.W. Bowman]

So, what does discussing faith and the law have to do with the question: How is God constituted, what are His elements of expression concerning His existence? There just isn’t that much one can find in the word that describes the infinite, incomprehensible God. So, what we are left with is an attempt to take our view of God, along with our ‘collective’ (subjective) experience of God, and hold that that up as the universal standard of truth for all men. This is doomed to failure because of two very important factors.

First, we do not have a documented, universal view of God or share identical experiences of Him, even among our own individual congregations, much less among the ever growing and splintering oneness organizations! This is why there are so many congregations who will not fellowship with other churches of the same organization – even within the same city! By our very actions and doctrines we testify against ourselves before both man and God, that we do not, in fact, have ‘the Truth’! If we did, then where is the scriptural evidence?

Second, there is a growing number of men and women who are starting to take up their God mandated responsibility to work out their own salvation, even with both fear and trembling. Like the men of Brea, they take what the preacher says from pulpit and examines the scriptures for themselves to see if what they are being taught is true. The result: They are coming up with more questions than answers. They are discovering that when stumped for a scriptural support reference for a sermon, the preacher will sometimes ‘manufacture’ a scripture, i.e. will deliberately miss read it, take it out of context, or change its intent/application in order to suit his/her own objective. People are starting to discover that they know as much or perhaps even more than the teacher, and are powerless to even discuss the issue, much less bring about correction! The result: Covert rebellion and/or separation from the body.

[A.W. Bowman]

This thread exemplifies one reason forums such as AFF are so important to individual spiritual growth. People come here with questions, expressing differing views and experiences, different intellectual and emotional perceptions of who and what God is. Many are seeking the reality of what kind and form their personal relationship with God should take, according to God’s desire, not according to the ideas of some third party. People can explore here what it is not permissible to discuss at church. On these pages they may even publicly challenge pastors and teachers on their personal doctrines. For example, I know of no church where I could be allowed to express these thought openly before the congregation – unless it is done in ‘my’ church.

For all: Remember every sermon you give or receive, is one man’s personal commentary on scripture, and is presented as his/her individual doctrine. Every teaching/preaching from every source (including your own thinking on a subject) is still a personal commentary on scriptures and when you say, “This is what I believe and why I believe it”, you have stated a new doctrine (teaching). Many professional ministers cannot allow such spiritual freedom for ‘the laity’, for them to openly express their own understanding of scripture or their exercise their personal spiritual or ministerial responsibilities within their church. Argument: To allow the laity to exercise their calling and ministry within the church, without my oversight and permission opens the door for theological error to creep into the church. This argument is valid! Only if one first assumes that the pastor/preacher/teacher is the single repository of all scriptural and spiritual knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. I am still looking for the book, chapter and verse that even suggests that. What I do find, however, is that God established a spiritual check and balances within the ministry – what has been almost totally ignored.

Conclusion: People are getting tired of ‘having church’ as usual. Many are looking for solid doctrines (spiritual food) on how to live an overcoming life, not substituting the pastor’s heaven/hell clothesline stance as the path to heaven. When adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, murder is taking place within one’s heart, and issues of how does one go about changing their heart, as God has commanded, how does one get there from here? People are simply tired of hearing about Acts 2:38, as though they never heard of it before. When do we move on to the meat of the word? The sorry answer is because so many spiritual leaders/teachers have no clue what the meat of the scriptures actually consists of. When presented with a full meal, they chock on it. So, they are being challenged, and they don’t like it because they don’t have the answers! We are back to the ‘spiritual parents’ saying, “Do what I say, not as I do”, and “Do it because I said so”. This approach to spiritual growth and maturity is losing its appeal.

[A.W. Bowman]

Now, back to the Michael’s concern’s:

A more focused recap:

Are doctrines being challenged today, more than ever in the past? Yes, they are. Are the pronouncements coming from the pulpits being challenged more than in the past? Yes, they are. Is the assumed authority of spiritual leaders being challenged more than ever in the past? Yes, they are.

One of the premises I work from is that, “Truth does not require defending, rather it actually invites examination. It is deception that shuns investigation and demands blind acceptance.”

With the First, I have removed nothing from the Tanakh that was written within those pages. What I have removed is an example of man’s manipulation of scripture in order to support a man made doctrine, rather establishing our doctrines on what the word of God ‘actually says’. Torah is very clear that we serve one God. That is a scriptural truth that stands on its own merit and cannot be challenged. Truth does not need defending, it withstands all challenges without moving and without damage. Deception, however, requires silent acceptance and rejects open examination in order to continue its existence.

Second, all English translations of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts confirm that that there is but one God. The problem is that we have taken the English translations and made unsupported doctrines out of them. For example, while there are many verses that declare God to be ‘one’, there are no verses that identifies the elements of composition of God or describes the nature of His various modes of existence. Ascribing attributes to God that attempt to define Him according to our personal idea of what God should be like, are the result of men’s imagination in competition with the imaginations of other men. As noted in one example I made earlier, God said that is impossible to ‘know’ Him, as to figure Him out. But, man doesn’t really care what God says, when it comes to defending our preferences we will actually ignore scripture. I can give several example of this, if desired.

Third, there is no record of what the Apostles taught concerning the nature of God’s composition (monolithic or composite). They do tell us that there is but one God, but nothing about the elements constituting His existence. What the Apostles did teach, however, was exactly what Jesus taught and commanded them to teach, even as those doctrines (with included instructions) are recorded in the Gospels. The problem: Most saints have not moved beyond the letters of Paul, thinking that these letters, along with the book of Acts, covers all of the essential doctrines of the initial church.

Most Christians believers have been stunted in their spiritual growth, when their teaching has been focused on Acts 2:38, the singularity of God, and how ‘lost’ the Trinitarians are, the requirement to tithe, and other such overworked sermons, yet ask a Christian of any stripe or kind to list even half of the approximately 40 commands of Jesus that are included in about 145 instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples and watch for the blank stare. That is, we claim to be disciples (students) of Jesus, but don’t know much of what He actually taught or requires of His disciples, and most professing believers don’t even attempt to find out. They are content to be told what they are to believe and to accept – and to do so without question. This is not the doctrines the Apostles shared with men.

Michael, your statements indicate that if I pointed out anything in my posts might be proven to correct, , concerning what the majority of Messianic Jews profess, then we Oneness folks just might be in error in one or more other things that we believe about God. And, you are correct is making such an assumption. It’s a true statement. Even so, anyone thinking that they are without error in their doctrines concerning God has already, by that statement, admitted to having errors in their doctrine(s) concerning God and are openly contradicting scripture.

Therefore, the questions are these: Does one want to be right (justified) in their own eyes, or according to the judgment of God? Is willful ignorance acceptable in the eyes of God? Is the fear of being wrong on some point of doctrine going to over shadow the quest for truth? When one thinks they have ‘the truth’, then by definition, they do not.

When the review of basic doctrines become so frequent and repetitious that they become religious propaganda, when sound bites like, “I am glad I know who Jesus is.” takes the place of acknowledging the creator of the universe according to His glory, and when the standard ‘alter call’ is used as a method for getting everyone to positively respond to the ‘message’, rather than allowing the people to either seek God individually or in groups of their own choosing, or even leaving the service in peace with their God, without some guilt trip about not visiting the alter. I am still looking for this ritual being performed in the apostolic churches.

[A.W. Bowman]

The bottom line is: Know what you believe and why you believe it. The only proviso is making sure that you know and understand the scriptural bases for your beliefs.

The test is this: If one cannot mount a creditable challenge to what they believe (hold to), they are in no position to adequately defend their position(s). What we have been given is an explanation of the question, why there are there apparently more Trinitarian Messianic Jews than Oneness? The explanation does not require anyone to agree to or accept the Hebrew world view. However, we Oneness folks have held up the Hebrew view of one God to be our standard against the view of God commonly held by Trinitarian Christians. Scripture language and the doctrines of Messianic Jews, along with a goodly number of observant and orthodox Jews, challenge the argument that we have assumed to be correct and have used to judge others and justify ourselves. Pastor judge each other and neighboring congregations on the bases of the holiness standards they have individually created – but seldom according to the word of God.

We are, as a movement, in danger of establishing our salvation on what we believe about God, rather than actually ‘knowing’ Him in an interment relationship, becoming prideful in our ‘perfect’ (the Truth) doctrines rather than being humble before our God, and thinking that the quality of our performance in a church service, as measured by the presiding worship leader, is the same as receiving God’s approval. We are right in our beliefs and everyone else is wrong in theirs (including our sister church across town). Yet, often times when God shows up, He is treated more as a guest (which is great), but not as the master of the house (preferred).

So, what now?

A place to start: The entire assembly (leaders and ‘non-leaders’ alike) need to take all of their assemblies doctrines and examine them one by one, starting with the basic requirements for salvation. Set aside the arguments that have been used for years, but examining the scriptures - all of them (old and new) – and to test themselves to see ‘if they are in the faith’, then to move on from there, through baptisms, laying on of hands, etc. then on into the meat of the word. But if history holds true, that is not likely to happen in a church setting. Rather, it will continue to be the quest of individual saints, and the ‘ministry’ will lament over their loosing of control over other people’s lives – something they were never given by God in the first place. Recommend study: Hebrews 13 from a Hebraic (conceptual) world view , not from our Greek and Roman (abstract) views.

[A.W. Bowman]

While this short presentation does not, indeed cannot, cover all of the issues presented on this thread, I pray that the discussion will drive each one further into the word - for study, and not just for a casual reaffirmation of stuff you are already settled on.

For those who think they already have all that is important to get, then there is no point for further study, except for the prospect of proving someone else wrong (self justification).

Forget the dictionaries, use a good lexicon for your language studies (and learn how to use it). If you come up with questions - go ask several people you think are knowledgeable, pray about it and go study some more.

Remember, we are discussing our individual salvation issues here, not someone else's. If anyone is content with where they are at, then by all means, stay on. If not, then move on. But movement means going into the unknown - an adventure of a life time, so take care who you invite to travel with you.

Shalom Aleichem



An added note:

Please check out this very short article on the 'Oneness' of God by a Oneness Messianic minister. Three in One?

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by houston

Are there Messianic Jews that are "oneness?" Why are most Messianic Jews Trinitarians? Isn't that an oxymoron (Trinitarian Jew).

Did you get your questions answered to your satisfaction?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The problem is you are attempting whether knowingly or not to remove the battle over Oneness doctrine from the Tanakh. We Oneness Christians accept IT as the revelation of God to the Jewish people nothing else.

Now if we are WRONG on that point we could well be wrong about the Oneness of God. But if we are wrong on what books written by Jewish authors are really the Bible Christianity could become irrelevant anyway.

The Tanakh is without doubt presenting A God who is absolutely One. Thats what the entire Oneness Pentecostal restoration was all about.

See this is far to important to simply be "nice" to each other about. Many are trying to destroy the Oneness faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles. They seem to be doing a good job on this forum as more are doubting if not outright falling all the time.

Did this series help in understanding why it is so important to test our doctrinal arguments against the original (or as close to the original as we can get) manuscripts?

Another one of my foundational premises is: Do not look to the scriptures for support of your doctrine, rather, look to the scriptures for a doctrine to support. Then test that doctrine against the entire body of scripture, not just those verses that 'appear' to support your position(s).

-----------------------

Here are a few threads that might provide a little help in undertaking a serious Bible study.

[houston]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Did you get your questions answered to your satisfaction?

Yes. I posted it on fb as a note. A woman wanted to know if you have a site. I did not direct here to AFF. I did direct her to the link in your signature.

[A.W. Bowman]

Thank you.

I hope her studies will be a blessing to her.