About Judaizing

[JaumeJ]

Here is something people should know, especially before using
the term judaizing.

At the time Paul was on his mission, Judaism had evolved into
various schools of thought and practice. Actually, before the first
Israel became a fond memory, there was no such thing as Judaism,
Israel was a theocracy, the government was from God
and the laws were also.

When it came time for our Lord, Jesus christ to come in the flesh, Israel and its theocracy
had disappeared being replaced by the remaining Judah with its new denominations.

Jesus came tos save them first from their errant behavior, then to save allo
mankind. That is all who would believe Him.

Today, Judaism is just as fractured as is what was once a one world church called Christian.

Pau's use of the word, judaizer, was in direct reference to thes fairly new schools of thought,
man's thoughts, in place of the truth from God.

So when someone is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that Gospel which was first received by
Abraham long before the Law, do not jump to the word, udaizer, unless you see them actually
attempting to make people into Pharisees, Sadduccess and the like, becaue usually it is a
great display of personal ignorance or worse yet, antisemetism

Today we have plenty of judizers running about, however they are the modern equivalent to
the ones at the time of our Savior, they call themselves by names of denominations of the
so-called Christian churches.

If I shre Jesus Christ was caleld Yeshua by friends and family, this is only becaue I know He was.......this
cannot be construed as judaizing, only as informative.

All too many are all to quick to display flagrant ignorance of their own Savior and the
true teachings from Yahweh....Oh, my good ness, I used an Hebrew transliteration for the Great I Am...
is this judaizing, knowing something?

 

[garee]

Here is something people should know, especially before using
the term judaizing.

At the time Paul was on his mission, Judaism had evolved into
various schools of thought and practice. Actually, before the first
Israel became a fond memory, there was no such thing as Judaism,
Israel was a theocracy, the government was from God
and the laws were also.

When it came time for our Lord, Jesus christ to come in the flesh, Israel and its theocracy
had disappeared being replaced by the remaining Judah with its new denominations.

Jesus came tos save them first from their errant behavior, then to save allo
mankind. That is all who would believe Him.

Today, Judaism is just as fractured as is what was once a one world church called Christian.

Pau's use of the word, judaizer, was in direct reference to thes fairly new schools of thought,
man's thoughts, in place of the truth from God.

So when someone is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that Gospel which was first received by
Abraham long before the Law, do not jump to the word, udaizer, unless you see them actually
attempting to make people into Pharisees, Sadduccess and the like, becaue usually it is a
great display of personal ignorance or worse yet, antisemetism

Today we have plenty of judizers running about, however they are the modern equivalent to
the ones at the time of our Savior, they call themselves by names of denominations of the
so-called Christian churches.

If I shre Jesus Christ was caleld Yeshua by friends and family, this is only becaue I know He was.......this
cannot be construed as judaizing, only as informative.

All too many are all to quick to display flagrant ignorance of their own Savior and the
true teachings from Yahweh....Oh, my good ness, I used an Hebrew transliteration for the Great I Am...
is this judaizing, knowing something?

I would agree and would offer that the priesthood was not established by Judah but a kingdom of priest the Levites given a city of refuge to represent our heavenly city founded on Christ, as residents thereof giving rise to the meaning of the word Christian the new name God named his people which with no other meaning added means residents of the city established by its founder. The suffix (ian) pointing to residents.. Philippians pointing to the residents named after its founder Philipi..etc

The Levites and not Judah were used to represent the kingdom of God not of this world and not after the flesh in respect to the kingdoms of this world. It is why I believe the Son of man coming from the tribe of Judah was ceremonially purified with h20 by John a Levite before Christ could enter his ministry and baptize others also. Where Judaism is after the flesh of Judah the same flesh Christ said does not profit. This shows they do not mix faith in what do hear coming from the word of God but walk by sight after the flesh as if it could profit.

 

[Grace777x70]

Question: "Who were the Judaizers?"

Answer: There have always been those who balk at the idea of God’s salvation being offered freely to those who believe. They reason that such a grand gift as forgiveness from such a holy God must require some kind of payment from us. We thank God for His grace, but we understand that He expects us to somehow earn that grace—in other words, there must be something that we can do to pay off the debt we owe to God.

In the early church, those who taught a combination of God’s grace and human effort were called “Judaizers.” The word Judaizer comes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.”

A Judaizer taught that, in order for a Christian to truly be right with God, he must conform to the Mosaic Law. Circumcision, especially, was promoted as necessary for salvation. Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes first, and then they could come to Christ.

The doctrine of the Judaizers was a mixture of grace (through Christ) and works (through the keeping of the Law). This false doctrine was dealt with in Acts 15 and strongly condemned in the book of Galatians.

At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, a group of Judaizers opposed Paul and Barnabas. Some men who belonged to the party of the Pharisees insisted that Gentiles could not be saved unless they were first circumcised and obeyed the Law of Moses.

Paul made the case that, in Christ, there was no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile, for God had purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:8–9). He said it plainly in Galatians 2:16: “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

To add anything to the work that Christ did for salvation is to negate God’s grace. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, not by returning to the Law. “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21).

There are many groups today with beliefs/practices very similar to the Judaizers of the New Testament. The two most prominent would be the Hebrew Roots Movement and the Roman Catholic Church. The teachings of the Hebrew Roots Movement are virtually identical to those of the Judaizers whom Paul rebuked in Galatians. A primary focus of the Hebrew Roots Movement is to put followers of Christ back under the bondage of the Old Testament Law.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches a doctrine similar to that of the Judaizers of the New Testament in this way: its doctrine is a mixture of law and grace. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Catholic Church explicitly denied the idea of salvation by faith alone.

Catholics have always held that certain sacraments are necessary for salvation. The issues for the 1st-century Judaizers were circumcision and Sabbath-keeping.

The issues for modern-day Catholics are baptism, confession, etc. The works considered necessary may have changed, but both Judaizers and Catholics attempt to merit God’s grace through the performance of ritualistic acts.


The Judaizers upheld the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation; Catholics uphold man-made tradition as necessary; both view Christ’s death as being insufficient without the active and continued cooperation of the one being saved.

The Bible is clear that the attempt to add human works to God’s grace overlooks the very meaning of grace, which is “undeserved blessing.” As Paul says, “If by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6). Praise the Lord, “Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).

https://gotquestions.org/Judaizers.html


I do not look at all Hebrew Roots or Sabbath keepers adherents as all the same.

As I have said before - there are many that are of authentic Jewish descent and they like their traditions but they do not say that others need to observe the Sabbath or feasts as in the law of Moses or you are dis-obeying God and sinning. They observe these things to see Christ as the fulfillment of them - not as something they "need" to do now.

This group has excellent teachings on how Christ has fulfilled the Law and show Christ in every part of the Old Testament. Jesus said that all the scriptures speak about Him.

This group of believers are a major blessing to us in the body of Christ and are not Judaizers such as Paul encountered and that are also in the extreme sects of Hebrew Roots and Sabbath keepers as in the Old Testament way that say believers in Christ must "observe the Sabbath and the feasts like in the law of Moses - or they are dis-obeying God and sinning".

Those - run away from as fast as you can! - but do not put all Hebrew Roots people I the same boat as the extreme sects because they are not the same.

 

[JaumeJ]

The response is in the post.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If I shre [share] Jesus Christ was caleld [called] Yeshua by friends and family, this is only becaue I know He was.......this cannot be construed as judaizing, only as informative.

You are absolutely correct in this particular instance. Yeshua was the proper Hebrew name of Jesus of Nazareth. So this is definitely not Judaizing. And it is only when we understand that Jesus is actually derived from two Hebrew words YAH + SHUA (God is [our] salvation) that we understand that Jesus is Himself our salvation.

Getting back to Judaizing, it goes back to the time when the Pharisees became a dominant sect within Judah, and began to teach that they could establish their own righteousness by observing the Law. But inwardly they were not really converted. After the resurrection of Christ, many Pharisees were converted, but could not give up the notion that salvation is by grace + the works of the Law (including circumcision). And this is why Paul had to preach against the Judaizers. Today's Judaism simply rejects Jesus the Messiah (Yeshua ha Mashiach) and tries to follow Moses. And then we have the Messsianic Jews who want to follow both Moses and Christ. But Paul (and the New Testament) make it crystal clear that it is either Moses or Christ, not both.

 

[oldethennew]

it's a 'personal thing, at the right moment, when we are led'...

when I pray, or just speak or just think, it seems like all of His Names
become combined and mean the same thing, His Love, my Love and gratefulness for Him...

 

[JaumeJ]

What you say is always true, and the spirit of your post was leading my thoughts in meditation this very morning. We are taught to think all things beautiful, and this is what I sense you are doing.

I also think in these terms when reading and waiting to be taught more of the Gospel. Praise God.

it's a 'personal thing, at the right moment, when we are led'...

when I pray, or just speak or just think, it seems like all of His Names
become combined and mean the same thing, His Love, my Love and gratefulness for Him...

 

[tanakh]

You are absolutely correct in this particular instance. Yeshua was the proper Hebrew name of Jesus of Nazareth. So this is definitely not Judaizing. And it is only when we understand that Jesus is actually derived from two Hebrew words YAH + SHUA (God is [our] salvation) that we understand that Jesus is Himself our salvation.

Getting back to Judaizing, it goes back to the time when the Pharisees became a dominant sect within Judah, and began to teach that they could establish their own righteousness by observing the Law. But inwardly they were not really converted. After the resurrection of Christ, many Pharisees were converted, but could not give up the notion that salvation is by grace + the works of the Law (including circumcision). And this is why Paul had to preach against the Judaizers. Today's Judaism simply rejects Jesus the Messiah (Yeshua ha Mashiach) and tries to follow Moses. And then we have the Messsianic Jews who want to follow both Moses and Christ. But Paul (and the New Testament) make it crystal clear that it is either Moses or Christ, not both.

Using the name Yeshua in itself is not Judaizing but many who used it are Judaizers. If you are a Hebrew speaking Jew its quite legitimate to use the name and the Hebrew language. I question why anyone else needs to. The Church has used Jesus or national variations for centuries so why change it? Another point is do those who use Yeshua also call Joshua and his book by the same name as well?

 

[graceNpeace]

Here is something people should know, especially before using
the term judaizing.

At the time Paul was on his mission, Judaism had evolved into
various schools of thought and practice. Actually, before the first
Israel became a fond memory, there was no such thing as Judaism,
Israel was a theocracy, the government was from God
and the laws were also.

When it came time for our Lord, Jesus christ to come in the flesh, Israel and its theocracy
had disappeared being replaced by the remaining Judah with its new denominations.

Jesus came tos save them first from their errant behavior, then to save allo
mankind. That is all who would believe Him.

Today, Judaism is just as fractured as is what was once a one world church called Christian.

Pau's use of the word, judaizer, was in direct reference to thes fairly new schools of thought,
man's thoughts, in place of the truth from God.

So when someone is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that Gospel which was first received by
Abraham long before the Law, do not jump to the word, udaizer, unless you see them actually
attempting to make people into Pharisees, Sadduccess and the like, becaue usually it is a
great display of personal ignorance or worse yet, antisemetism

Today we have plenty of judizers running about, however they are the modern equivalent to
the ones at the time of our Savior, they call themselves by names of denominations of the
so-called Christian churches.

If I shre Jesus Christ was caleld Yeshua by friends and family, this is only becaue I know He was.......this
cannot be construed as judaizing, only as informative.

All too many are all to quick to display flagrant ignorance of their own Savior and the
true teachings from Yahweh....Oh, my good ness, I used an Hebrew transliteration for the Great I Am...
is this judaizing, knowing something?

The term Judaizer refers primarily to the book of Galatians!
The book of Acts also has plenty of references to the problem, including the account of the council of Jerusalem, which dealt with the Judaizing heresy.
It has nothing, nothing to do with different schools of thought within Judaism!

To be a Judaizer very simply means to be one who calls for a return to the practice of the law or, as in the case of Gentile believers, accepting the law as binding on them, which included circumcision (as laid out from Exodus to Deuteronomy) after accepting and believing in Jesus Christ.

Those who are less familiar with the terminology, the reference to circumcision found in Galatians and Acts, is used as a catch-all to refer to the law as a whole. (Circumcision was also important because the law, as given to Moses was a covenant between Israel and God, and obviously, one could not be party to this covenant unless one was circumcised first according to covenant God made with Abraham.)

In covenant terms, one cannot be under the New Covenant (mediated by Jesus Christ) and be party to the Covenant of Moses simultaneously.
Only one covenant can apply!

 

[JaumeJ]

Jesus Christ preached and teached teh Gospel, His Gospel.

Paul added the grace only teaching; it was not taught specifically by Jesus Christ but He did teach if we believe He is the Son fo God we are saved......

If we believe Jesus Christ, we will do as best we are able ass He did, and we willmodel ourselves as best given us after His Example.

Now, would you say Paul is authorized to rescind Christ's teaching? Jesus teaches teh law will never be obsolete as long as there is a sun and a moon. He does, however shed great light on how the law is to be viewed and practice.

All too many teach what they do not know, using the terms only from Episstles and not from Jesus Christ directly. The Epistles may be used to aregue both sides of just about any contention arising covered by them.

Keep in mind, although according to scholars Paul is the very most important of the Apostles, he is not one of the original Twelve and the importance given Paul by mankind is disstressing, even toPaul

 

[Grandpa]

If the temple would have remained and everything remained the same as it was in the time of King David would there have been the need of the Saviour Jesus Christ?

Or did the Lord Jesus come to re-instate the original covenant because people were messing it up?

 

[Grandpa]

Jesus Christ preached and teached teh Gospel, His Gospel.

Paul added the grace only teaching; it was not taught specifically by Jesus Christ but He did teach if we believe He is the Son fo God we are saved......

The Lord Jesus Christ DID teach Grace only Salvation.

But only those who come to Him understand and realize it. Its called Revelation.

And then Paul, in the scriptures, confirms it.


If we believe the Lord Jesus Christ we will come to Him and receive Rest. We will not ignore His Words and continue to reject His Grace.

If you preach that you must continue or go back to your work and understanding of the law you are a Judaizer. See Acts 15. Its really simple.

Romans 10:1-4
[FONT=&quot]1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.[/FONT]

 

[JaumeJ]

King David was not allowed t construct the Temple due to his own blood guilt. Although he was beloved of God, his blood guilt held him back from this privilege.

His son, Slomon was given the honor of constructing the first Temple..

As for it emaining, it had to be rebuilt at the time of Ezra I believe, but it never attained the glory of the first Temple.

As for it remaining, the will of our Father is always exclusive. Jesus Christ is the Chief and the Corner Stone of the Temple of God now. We are the living stones of the Temple

Jesus, when the disciples were marveling at the Temple and the buildings, informs us that when He retturns there shall not be one stone left upon the other. Now, the Holy Spirit lets me understand the Chief and the Corner Stone weas taken to heaven while the living stones of the Temple are scattered. He is coming back to reconstruct the Temple.

There is much more to this analogy, but that would be way too wordy for a forum.

If making people praisers of Yahweh (God) is Judaizing, then we should Judaize. If making others worhsip the law is Judaizing, this should not be done, owever there is great wisdom in the law which points to Jesus christ.

Today, understanding how the law works is understanding the teachings and example of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

If the temple would have remained and everything remained the same as it was in the time of King David would there have been the need of the Saviour Jesus Christ?

Or did the Lord Jesus come to re-instate the original covenant because people were messing it up?

 

[mailmandan]

Jesus Christ preached and teached teh Gospel, His Gospel.

Paul added the grace only teaching; it was not taught specifically by Jesus Christ but He did teach if we believe He is the Son fo God we are saved......

Are you saying the gospel that Jesus taught was, "believe He is the Son of God and you are saved" (John 20:31) and the gospel that Paul taught adds grace, along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? (Ephesians 3:7; Corinthians 15:1-4) Sounds like dispensational teaching.

 

[JaumeJ]

If this is the only way tomak this understood, Paul teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul declares this to be so. Paul declares there is no other Gospel than that of Jesus Christ

I believe him when he makes these declarations, therefore when Jesus Christ, teaching His Gospel, says believe I am the Son of Go and you will be saved, YES, I believe Jesus Christ. Paul says to do so also.

Perhaps you are influenced by the article I was paraphrasing which says Paul is credited with the doctrinal teaching of grace, not Jesus Christ. Well, I take what Jesus teaches as paramount. His Gospel was the same to Abraham to the Hebrews first when He came to earth, and finally to all nations, One Gospel.

I do say that many schoarly believers will use the letters of Paul to support both sides of the same argumetn

This does not occur with the teachings of Jesus Christ, excep perhaps when misunderstood.

Are you saying the gospel that Jesus taught was, "believe He is the Son of God and you are saved" (John 20:31) and the gospel that Paul taught adds grace, along with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? (Ephesians 3:7; Corinthians 15:1-4) Sounds like dispensational teaching.

 

[oldethennew]

Using the name Yeshua in itself is not Judaizing but many who used it are Judaizers. If you are a Hebrew speaking Jew its quite legitimate to use the name and the Hebrew language. I question why anyone else needs to. The Church has used Jesus or national variations for centuries so why change it? Another point is do those who use Yeshua also call Joshua and his book by the same name as well?

===============================================

God's Real Name, at one point in both of our lives, created such a lovely intimacy,
that, although we don't always refer to Him in this way, Yeshua, it is one of the most
precious ways that make us feel so close to Him...

who can deny the 'GIFT' of such Holy Grace?...

call It what you will or think of It as you will...

 

[graceNpeace]

Jesus Christ preached and teached teh Gospel, His Gospel.

Paul added the grace only teaching; it was not taught specifically by Jesus Christ but He did teach if we believe He is the Son fo God we are saved......

If we believe Jesus Christ, we will do as best we are able ass He did, and we willmodel ourselves as best given us after His Example.

Now, would you say Paul is authorized to rescind Christ's teaching? Jesus teaches teh law will never be obsolete as long as there is a sun and a moon. He does, however shed great light on how the law is to be viewed and practice.

All too many teach what they do not know, using the terms only from Episstles and not from Jesus Christ directly. The Epistles may be used to aregue both sides of just about any contention arising covered by them.

Keep in mind, although according to scholars Paul is the very most important of the Apostles, he is not one of the original Twelve and the importance given Paul by mankind is disstressing, even toPaul

In other words Paul teaches error?
That is nonsense!
There is no difference in principle between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.
The main difference was that Jesus had a job to do in perfectly obeying the law in order to institute the New Covenant, whereas Paul taught from the perspective of the New Covenant already being instituted.

The bottom line is that the covenant God made with Moses (and Israel) - and this includes the ten commandments since they are the absolute centrepiece of that covenant - is no longer binding on New Covenant believers.

 

[pete9]

I don't like the reappearance of the notion that Christians are under the law of Moses. That they are not is clearly explained in Acts. No one can miss it. But this stuff has popped out all of a sudden, at the end of the age, which is an awfully suspicious time to find radical changes in Christian doctrine. The Hebrew Roots guys show their true colors by their dislike of the Apostle Paul. It is because these beliefs come hand in hand with the insistence that we change our pronunciation of the name of Jesus that I am even suspicious of that pronunciation. I know that the name "Jesus" is not Hebrew, but I would not trust an "authentic" pronunciation insisted upon 2000 years later by those who do not like the Apostle Paul and who clearly have a problem with what is in the book of Acts. Next we'll be told that Peter's dream about non-kosher dinners has some convoluted meaning that no one can understand without a rabbi. And then we'll be told that the Talmud has valuable information in it that we should study up on. And then we'll be told that we need to fight WWIII over the rebuilding of the temple. So on and so forth.

 

[pete9]

Also, I'd like to say that semites are a family/race of people. It is not a religion. Judaism is a religion. At this point, it has nothing to do with a race of people. I'd like to refer to an old text, hope you guys won't "judge" the author:

"I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against
them. But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do
not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I
have published this little book, so that I might be found among those
who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the
Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed
that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and
wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world,
and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with
the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen."

-Martin Luther

 

[JaumeJ]

No, not at all. I believe Paul is understood in error by many, especially all who ue his contributions for both sides of a given question....... It is always good to hear Jesus Christ, and even best when we go to the Source. Nothing wrong with this.

In other words Paul teaches error?
That is nonsense!
There is no difference in principle between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.
The main difference was that Jesus had a job to do in perfectly obeying the law in order to institute the New Covenant, whereas Paul taught from the perspective of the New Covenant already being instituted.

The bottom line is that the covenant God made with Moses (and Israel) - and this includes the ten commandments since they are the absolute centrepiece of that covenant - is no longer binding on New Covenant believers.