Israel the olive tree!

[4 Zion]

Shalom!

It seems to me the historical church under gentile leadership intentionally seperated itself from its Hebraic roots. There seems to have been a historical point when the growing Roman church began to forcefully remove itself from its origins and re create itself in a completely different light. Altering basic aspects of its identity to disassociate itself with all things "Jewish".This happened directly under Constintine but probably began much earlier. Under Constintine both church and state had formed consolidation.The Roman church remained a powerful political entity for many centuries following.

The changing of Sabbath to Sunday and rejection of the biblical appointed days in favor of church ordained holidays, which were actually christainized pagan festivals, all began with Constintine. It seems to me the church was proclaiming itself the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessings in place of Israel. Disregarding Israel as a viable heir to God's promises to Abraham and his decendants. This probably seemed theologically logical until the return of the Jews to Palestine and the reforming of the nation of Israel.

I would like to see discussion on this topic and the extended issue of what the mainstream church has become in light of this seperation from what has been a thoroughly Hebrew religion.

Were Jesus and his disciples actually creating another world religion? Or were they simply confronting completing and correcting the one already established? Confronting a religious system already thoroughly corrupted by the hellenisation of Judea and the power mongering and manipulation of its religious leadership?

Blessings!

[Catholicity]

Ok, history review, When did the Church officially move her headquarters to Rome and Why?

At what point did the Church become seperate from the Jewish Synagogues and why?

Who was considered the head of the Church in Rome? (hint all answers are found in Scripture)

[4 Zion]

I would like to see discussion on this topic and the extended issue of what the mainstream church has become in light of this seperation from what has been a thoroughly Hebrew religion. Were Jesus and his disciples actually creating another world religion? Or were they simply confronting completing and correcting the one already established? Confronting a religious system already thoroughly corrupted by the hellenisation of Judea and the power mongering and manipulation of its religious leadership? Blessings!

Just to clarify the purpose of this post.

[Scrawly]

[QUOTE=4 Zion;3182219]Shalom!

It seems to me the historical church under gentile leadership intentionally seperated itself from its Hebraic roots. There seems to have been a historical point when the growing Roman church began to forcefully remove itself from its origins and re create itself in a completely different light. Altering basic aspects of its identity to disassociate itself with all things "Jewish".This happened directly under Constintine but probably began much earlier. Under Constintine both church and state had formed consolidation.The Roman church remained a powerful political entity for many centuries following.

The changing of Sabbath to Sunday and rejection of the biblical appointed days in favor of church ordained holidays, which were actually christainized pagan festivals, all began with Constintine. It seems to me the church was proclaiming itself the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessings in place of Israel. Disregarding Israel as a viable heir to God's promises to Abraham and his decendants. This probably seemed theologically logical until the return of the Jews to Palestine and the reforming of the nation of Israel.

1) In regards to the Sabbath: can you please exegete Romans 14: 4-5?

2) In regards to Israel and the Abrahamic blessings: On what basis do we receive the promises of God? Do we receive them because of anything in us? Do we receive salvation because of our ethnic background? Absolutely not. John 1:12-13 says: "Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God --children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

Moreover, Jesus said, to native born Israelites who rejected Him: "If you were Abraham's children then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is you are determined to kill me....You belong to your father, the devil" (John 8:39-44). You see, unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles, are of their father the devil. Furthermore, God is able to make children of Abraham, spiritually speaking, from Gentiles. Why do I say this? Because He can even make them out of stones! John the baptizer said: "Do not think you can say to yourselves `We have Abraham as our father'. I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" (Matthew 3:9).

Finally, it is utterly imperative to understand that Messiah alone is truly worthy to inherit the promises of Abraham. Galatians 3:16 states: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The scripture does not say `and to seeds,' meaning many people, but "and to your seed", meaning one person, who is Messiah". Galatians 3:16 clearly says that Jesus alone is the heir of the promises to Abraham, this one person, not many people. It doesn't matter what your ethnic background is, you can make no claim on the promises to Abraham in unbelief apart from Messiah.Galatians 3:26-29 states: "You are all (Jews and Gentiles who believe) sons of God through faith in Messiah Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Messiah have clothed yourselves with Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, you are all one in Messiah Jesus. If you belong to Messiah then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Jesus is the true heir and the true son of Abraham, and if we are in Messiah we have it all.

3) In regards to Israel and 1948: It seems you confuse things by not making a distinction between the national covenant and the Abrahamic covenant - the promise God made at Sinai and the covenant of Grace of which the promise made to Abraham was a part of. In the NT the idea of a land promise under the Abrahamic covenant is universalized. In his epistle to the Romans Paul is describing the role of Abraham in redemptive history - specifically Romans 4. In Romans 4:13. Paul tells us what happens to the land promise when viewed from Abraham’s perspective: “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.”
The promise land is now said the be the world! The Abrahamic covenant - the promise attached to it of the land is unconditional - it’s been fulfilled in Christ - and now that promise goes beyond that little chunk of ground in Palestine to include the whole earth!

Also In Romans 9-11 where Paul talks about the future of Israel, well, he never once talks about Israel coming back to the land, rather, he mentions Jews becoming Christian’s - and that is the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham.

Therefore, the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled as we read in Galatians 3 & 4 and Romans 4 & 5. The Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled when the Gentile comes to Christ - and where do Gentiles live? The whole earth.

So, it is Paul who universalizes a narrow OT promise. Is the promise made to Abraham unconditional? Absolutely. God ensures that it’s fulfilled. But the NT universalizes it, not to the chunk of ground in Palestine, but to the ends of the earth. That’s why I am confident that Israel returning to the land, whatever role that plays in God’s providence, is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant - because the NT tells us that the Abrahamic covenant is already fulfilled in Christ, and it is fulfilled by all of those Gentiles who trust in Jesus! Remember in Genesis 15 how God takes Abraham out and shows him the stars and says this is how numerous your descendants will be? That is the Gentiles.

I hope you can accept the fact that Israel, once again a nation, has to do with God’s providence and not promise. As it stands, Israel is a secular nation just like any other nation; just like like Holland or the United States and has been assembled there by the providential hand of God for the purposes of God. We have to leave it at that because there are simply no texts that let us go beyond that.

I would like to see discussion on this topic and the extended issue of what the mainstream church has become in light of this seperation from what has been a thoroughly Hebrew religion.

Can you define "Church" for me?

Were Jesus and his disciples actually creating another world religion? Or were they simply confronting completing and correcting the one already established? Confronting a religious system already thoroughly corrupted by the hellenisation of Judea and the power mongering and manipulation of its religious leadership?

Jesus and the apostles were ushering in New Covenant Judaism, also known as Christianity.

Blessings!

[mitzi]

Shalom!

It seems to me the historical church under gentile leadership intentionally seperated itself from its Hebraic roots. There seems to have been a historical point when the growing Roman church began to forcefully remove itself from its origins and re create itself in a completely different light. Altering basic aspects of its identity to disassociate itself with all things "Jewish".This happened directly under Constintine but probably began much earlier. Under Constintine both church and state had formed consolidation.The Roman church remained a powerful political entity for many centuries following.

The changing of Sabbath to Sunday and rejection of the biblical appointed days in favor of church ordained holidays, which were actually christainized pagan festivals, all began with Constintine. It seems to me the church was proclaiming itself the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessings in place of Israel. Disregarding Israel as a viable heir to God's promises to Abraham and his decendants. This probably seemed theologically logical until the return of the Jews to Palestine and the reforming of the nation of Israel.

I would like to see discussion on this topic and the extended issue of what the mainstream church has become in light of this seperation from what has been a thoroughly Hebrew religion.

Were Jesus and his disciples actually creating another world religion? Or were they simply confronting completing and correcting the one already established? Confronting a religious system already thoroughly corrupted by the hellenisation of Judea and the power mongering and manipulation of its religious leadership?

Blessings!

I really held off on this last night - and I'm glad I did. The reason being is that I don't think you're heading with this correctly. Your focus is on "a" particular denomination without looking at the whole piece of the pie, sort of speak. Your understanding is that the Roman Church is at fault for not returning back to original source of Hebraic faith. As we both know - The church had become more universal and making it exclusive to many ethnic groups from both Eastern and Western areas of Europe, including those in Lebanon (Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch - and from Russia - The Melkite Greek Catholic Church) - without emphasizing on one particular culture- centralizing culturalism.

See article:

"Early Christianity in the region focused in and around the city of Antioch. The conversion of Antioch was carried out by the disciples of Jesus and the faith of its inhabitants was further strengthened by the work of the apostles Paul and Barnabas. The church of Antioch itself was founded by Saint Peter who was bishop there before moving on to Rome, and it was in this church where the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians. Along with Alexandria in Egypt and Constantinople, Antioch was one of the most important spiritual centers of the east. It outranked the others in biblical scholarship. Two factors, however, led to the gradual decay of the church of Antioch: its political position as a buffer state between the Byzantine Empire and its antagonistic powers; and its ecclesiastical division by schisms and heresies. Branches of the original ethnic branches of the Apostolic Churches. Click to view a large version.

"One of the most serious divisions of the early church was a result of a conflict over the nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ himself. It was maintained by the Monophysites that in the person of Christ there was but one nature which was primarily divine but had human attributes. A second school of thought held that in Christ there was both a divine nature and a human nature and that these were perfectly united." LINK

The Catholic Church was never created by Constantine - the church had existed well before Constantine. However, at the time of Constantine - the church was facing many problem, that being - organization. In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople. During this time (the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) there were considered five primary sees according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, known as the Pentarchy." LINK

Also - for Christians, the reason for worship on Sunday instead of the Shabbat is because the Resurrection happened on Sunday. But another thought was Peter, at the Council of Jerusalem, who had really stressed some important issues in Acts 15:8 "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Not only did Gentiles (back then) lack somewhat of a connection for Jewish rituals (?) - but also the importance of celebrating Shabbat, so there really wasn't a stress - (and continues today) or for even keeping Kosher - although Acts 15 stresses it...but the labeling of the religion was written in Acts 11:26: And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch being in (christos).

It's really "not" the fault of the church for the direction that was made, long ago- 4 Zion.


Blessings

Mitzi

[4 Zion]

Shalom Mitzi!

Your understanding is that the Roman Church is at fault for not returning back to original source of Hebraic faith. As we both know - The church had become more universal and making it exclusive to many ethnic groups from both Eastern and Western areas of Europe, including those in Lebanon (Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch - and from Russia - The Melkite Greek Catholic Church) - without emphasizing on one particular culture- centralizing culturalism.

I understand the differences of the cultural groups and adaptions made by them. The RC church has held dominance and had the most impact on doctrines of all these former groups and continues on to this day.
They are the primary influence on the protestant as well as offshoots of the protestant groups on to the mainstream churches of the western cultures.

The Catholic Church was never created by Constantine - the church had existed well before Constantine. However, at the time of Constantine - the church was facing many problem, that being - organization. In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople. During this time (the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) there were considered five primary sees according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, known as the Pentarchy." LINK

Yes I know Constantine did not "create" the Roman Catholic church. He mainly secularized it. The six churches of the council beyond constantinople faded away eventually. Leaving the influence in the hands of the eastern Contantinople church and the Roman church. The eastern church had little influence in the west European countries. Leaving the Roman church as the power in the west. The fall of Rome to the barbarians transfered what had been secular power into the hands of the Papal office which wielded power over virtually all Europe for many centuries. Manipulating monarchies even to the point of trying to purge any non catholic elements in the countries it held sway over. The Spanish and protestant inquisitions alone eliminated possibly millions of individuals that were deemed potential threats to the dominance of Papal Catholicism. "Drunk on the blood of the saints!"

The altering of the theology to fit the idea that Christianity had become the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessing replacing Israel has dominated the church since about 400 AD. This concept has influenced the majority of non catholic churches to some degree down through history. Like it or not she is the "mother church" even though each branch on the family tree has adjusted their individual theologies somewhat to fit their specific interpretations since then.

It's really "not" the fault of the church for the direction that was made, long ago-

I appreciate your insights Mitzi, You are a very intelligent insightful and spiritually focused person. I will have to say that I DO hold this Root church responsible for much of the pollution present in the church today. I believe she will be the core of" Mystery Babylon mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" in these last days. We who believe are commanded to depart from the false system so that we do not share in her judgements, By God Himself!

This is my understanding and opinion. I am not condeming catholics personally or any other group here. I am simply stating my perspective and interpretation of scripture and history. Everyone on this forum is stating their own perceptions and interpretations according to what they believe. According to their personal phylosophies, doctrines and theologies. I apologize if mine seems harsh.

Blessings

[franktalk]

4 Zion,

It is true that the Christian Church became something that is not in the New Testament. But it is also true that the Jews became something not in the Old Testament. So the discussion of purity is one discussion and the discussion of screwed up doctrines about who holds the promises of God is another. In my view the promises to the Jews have never changed. So I can only address the issue of purity.

It is man who is responsible for the Jews and Christians adopting practices not in accordance with scripture. The Jews did not wish to allow the upstart Christians to use their Old Testament books, so around 300 AD changes were made to the Holy scriptures. A comparison between the modern Hebrew scriptures and the Septuagint or Dead Sea scrolls shows a difference in content. Not much but enough for the Jews to claim that the Christians changed the words in the Old Testament. Also without a Temple the Jews changed many things and started the terrible practice of adding the words of Rabbis as equivalent to scripture. But not to be undone the Christians ignored the structure of the Church in scripture and placed a Pope in between God and man. They also ignored many clear aspects of the Church. Where the Church was to respect the State as described in scripture the Church became the State.

Now I am a Christian and I believe that nonchristian Jews do have spiritual blindness. This means that they should still be under the Law and under the scriptures that Moses wrote. But the Jews have followed the same path as the gentiles. They have split into various sects and doctrines. It is obvious that there is but one truth so the division of churches or synagogues is not from God.

The bottom line is that few people follow the correct structure or even the correct scripture. But in my mind it is pretty close and the core message is still there.

[jo7241974]

4 Zion;3182219]Shalom!

It seems to me the historical church under gentile leadership intentionally seperated itself from its Hebraic roots. There seems to have been a historical point when the growing Roman church began to forcefully remove itself from its origins and re create itself in a completely different light. Altering basic aspects of its identity to disassociate itself with all things "Jewish".This happened directly under Constintine but probably began much earlier. Under Constintine both church and state had formed consolidation.The Roman church remained a powerful political entity for many centuries following.

The changing of Sabbath to Sunday and rejection of the biblical appointed days in favor of church ordained holidays, which were actually christainized pagan festivals, all began with Constintine. It seems to me the church was proclaiming itself the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessings in place of Israel. Disregarding Israel as a viable heir to God's promises to Abraham and his decendants. This probably seemed theologically logical until the return of the Jews to Palestine and the reforming of the nation of Israel.

I would like to see discussion on this topic and the extended issue of what the mainstream church has become in light of this seperation from what has been a thoroughly Hebrew religion.

Hi 4 Zion,

I think that replacement theology did evolve pretty much the way you have presented it. It has greatly effected the way various Christian religions view the NT. As a result, IMO, many of Paul's teachings are completely misinterpreted; especially Romans. Also, by the time of the Reformation we can see from Martin Luther's own writings, how much he hated the Jewish people. He was not alone in this conviction.

Meanwhile, the Jewish leaders had also altered their own canon because they did not want their religion to look like it was Christian. Therefore, both sides have played that game. Unfortunately, as Jesus taught, the scribes and Pharisees were already teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. Things got even worse, however, when they changed their canon even more in order to separate themselves from anything "Christian". For those who have the patience and time to research the results of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they can discover the extent of those changes. However, this is not an easy task as today's Jewish religious leaders are anxiously keeping this information from going public.

As you have already shown, it didn't take long for the Christian leaders to also alter what they were teaching; and they soon also taught as doctrine the commandments of men.

Were Jesus and his disciples actually creating another world religion? Or were they simply confronting completing and correcting the one already established? Confronting a religious system already thoroughly corrupted by the hellenisation of Judea and the power mongering and manipulation of its religious leadership?

Your last paragraph is not so easily addressed. Jesus came to fulfill all Righteiousness. I wouldn't consider this a desire to create another world religion. There is only one Almighty God and only one Jesus Christ who is His Son. It is man who has found his own reasons for creating various religions or labels; but I would not say that this was Jesus' intent. It is His desire that we all become One. However, when the Jews, for the most part, rejected and did not recognize Him, they were blinded which opened the doors for the Gentiles to receive Him. So, we can see that God's purposes will be accomplished regardless of what mankind does. When the days of the work of preaching the Gospel to all of the Gentiles is completed, the End Times will be ushered in and the blindness of the Jews will be removed. Thus all of mankind will receive the blessings Father has brought to us through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Inasmuch as the institutions of religion have become so very corrupted in their teachings within Christendom since the time Jesus and His Apostles walked the earth, Jesus did see the need to Restore His Gospel message, rather than try to correct the institutions already in place. This Restoration took place in the 1800's. It restores the tidings of great joy as He originally taught them.

Once we are all resurrected and the earth has been renewed, there will be only one religion and it will be God's Kingdom.


Best regards,

jo

[4 Zion]

Shalom!

Yes I completely agree that Judaism as well as Christianity have strayed far in different directions and that this seperation is man made. As a Messianic I stand somewhere in between these two groups,mostly rejected by both...lol! It is a very difficult thing to bridge the gap sometimes. Christians tend to reject anyone who embraces Torah while Jews mostly reject embracing Jesus as their Messiah.From a Jewish perspective Christians are rejecting God's word (Torah) Obviously both groups are blind to some degree. thousands of years of persecution have left the Jews with a bad taste in their mouths for Christianity. Who can really blame them? I see Jesus as the embodiment of Torah. God's standard of rightiousness, that He lived out fully! I see no discrepency between Law and Grace.They are not opposites as many believe. The opposite of Law is not grace! The opposite of Law is lawlessness! Both rightiousness and mercy are aspects of the nature of God. Torah points to God's rightiousness and Jesus to His mercy/grace. Both aspects will be very evident when he returns to rule as King of this planet during the coming 1000 year reign before the final judgement.

Just wanted to clarify that I am very aware of the errors of Judaism as well as much of Christianity.But since this forum is mainly made up of Christians just delt with that aspect mainly.

Blessings

[4 Zion]

Shalom!

1) In regards to the Sabbath: can you please exegete Romans 14: 4-5?

Sure, If I regard the 7th day as the true biblical sabbath or chose to keep the biblical dietary instructions I only answer to MY master for that. Right?( It is a doubled edged sword!)

2. yes salvation is by faith. Not by works or ethnic(hebrew) background. This was never an issue as far as I can see.There were always non Hebrews joining themselves to Israel.

There are two components to the Abrahamic covenant. Physical and spiritual. Made up of both Hebrews and non Hebrews both saved by faith.The political nation of Israel IS secular and the Land IS GOD'S! It will be occupied by God's engrafted (Rom. 11) people throughout the millenium.

Can you define "Church" for me?

Sure, its a building right? (just kidding!) I suppose it could be whatever people want to define it as depending on their group's theology. I think the word is a poor translation choice personally.It lacks definition.Inclusive or exclusive depending.Roman catholic,Baptist, Methodists etc.

Blessings!

[Scrawly]

Shalom!




Sure, If I regard the 7th day as the true biblical sabbath or chose to keep the biblical dietary instructions I only answer to my master for that. Right?

2. yes salvation is by faith. Not by works or ethnic(hebrew) background. This was never an issue as far as I can see.

3.Yes there are two parts t this aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Physical and spiritual. Made up of both Hebrews and non Hebrews both saved by faith.The political nation of Israel is secular and the Land is God's. It will be occupied by God's engrafted(Rom. 11) people throughout the millenium.

Agreed - except for your last sentence, as I am an A-mil.

Sure, its a building right?(just kidding) I suppose it could be people want to define it as.

Blessings!

Of course, but the question is how does the Bible define "Church"? Answer: The body of Christ comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus Christ. See Ephesians 2:14-16:

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."

[mitzi]

4 Zion;
Shalom Mitzi!

Hi 4 Zion and Shalom;

I understand the differences of the cultural groups and adaptions made by them. The RC church has held dominance and had the most impact on doctrines of all these former groups and continues on to this day.

They are the primary influence on the protestant as well as offshoots of the protestant groups on to the mainstream churches of the western cultures.

Western culture - can you be a little more specific on that? Ireland, France, U.K, United State - when you write (post) that the western culture has more dominance over the others, all cultures within the church have to follow the same doctrine. Western and Eastern church (as I come from the Eastern - Czechoslovakia) follows the same as the Western - if you're thinking in a political sphere of the church, one dominates over the other - than I would say - you're wrong. Example of dominance can be in a theological way - or an intellectual way, and I haven't seen that in the church.

I've have come from being raised as a Catholic, growing up within a Eastern culture (at home - through my relatives), and have celebrated the traditions (at Christmas - Houska bread (must like Traditional egg bread for the Jewish Sabbath - The Houska is a sweet bread but braided the same way), I've (also) been apart of a Jewish background - by descent, history and grandparent (of long ago) from (and I believed - Spain) although from Portugal (because of the name - it's more from Jews of Portugal)...these are just a few named things.

Although, I have somewhat of a connection - as you, yourself, do - as you seem to be practicing the Messianic faith. However, what had been long ago, has been (and I felt - even on the board) drained - or somewhat extracted in a personable way - not in a sense of a connection toward heritage. Although, there have been many stories on our end of the table - we knew as a family the path we had to walked. Also, I believe (very strongly) that the connection will return "for all" on our side - as comparing with with the story of Joseph to Jacob, the remark coming from Jacob was monumental "“Now that I have seen your face again, I can die in peace." from father to son. However, the family "and as individuals" need to pursue this quest for themselves and on their "own" for it is a personal journey - some day. I hope and pray they will find it (edit)- As me, myself and I....I wouldn't be having such a strong sense for the Torah - and also seeking (within) for God - if that connection wasn't there. Only I'm like Moshe - 3 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

So it's the "why me" syndrome - and by farrrrrr; my relatives are more educated in religious and also in their academics matters than I would ever hope that I could be - So Again, and I say this in a very metaphorically way "Send Aaron" - LOL. Strong I think the good Lord has pickup on me - but (and as I've said) God "sees" us, not as we see ourselves but as He see us and can teach us, as hard as that maybe.

Paul said it best "26-29 together, “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” Proud people of the world do not know God."

And in Torah "The Maharal (Netivot Olam, Netiv Hatorah, Chapter 2) writes that humility is a character trait that fits the Torah. He explains a striking comment by the Sages. On the verse, “It (the Torah) is not in Heaven,” (Devarim 30:12) they comment (Eiruvin 55a), “You will not find the Torah among arrogant people (‘gasei haruach’).” Arrogant people are limited, because they see themselves as being at a certain level of greatness. The humble person is without limits, boundless, because he does not see himself as anything at all. He is therefore fitting to be the one to be the recipient of the boundless Torah. Just as the Torah is able to spread out, so can the humble person. Just as the Torah is open to and connected to all people, so the humble person is open to and connected to all people. The two are therefore fitting." LINK

"Shemayah and Avtalyon received the tradition from [their teachers]. Shemayah taught: Love work; hate positions of domination; do not make yourself known to the authorities. Avtalyon taught: Sages, be careful of what you say lest you be exiled by the authorities...Hillel and Shammai received the Torah from them. Hillel taught: Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace...Shammai taught: Make the study of Torah your primary occupation... (1:10-15)" LINK

Yes I know Constantine did not "create" the Roman Catholic church. He mainly secularized it. The six churches of the council beyond Constantinople faded away eventually. Leaving the influence in the hands of the eastern Constantinople church and the Roman church. The eastern church had little influence in the west European countries. Leaving the Roman church as the power in the west. The fall of Rome to the barbarians transferred what had been secular power into the hands of the Papal office which wielded power over virtually all Europe for many centuries. Manipulating monarchies even to the point of trying to purge any non catholic elements in the countries it held sway over. The Spanish and protestant inquisitions alone eliminated possibly millions of individuals that were deemed potential threats to the dominance of Papal Catholicism. "Drunk on the blood of the saints!"

I'm sure others on the board can elaborate more precisely about history of the Church than I can. However, yesterday, I had listened to a speaker on the radio who had talked about this same subject - Oxford graduate and has many conversations or inter-dialect with evangelist (Protestants). Understanding that there is a "deep" sentiment (or resentment) for Catholics - which this resentment for the church - and from the speakers thoughts - has started to diminish, some what, but this had been deeply rooted for years. However, the dialogue is a good beginning between denominations and that is the most important part. What has happened in the past - is the past. We must fix the future of the church on both ends - understandable most of the quarrel is on theology - The passage that comes up and has been a source of conflict -

Luke 24:

So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

The altering of the theology to fit the idea that Christianity had become the sole benefactor of the Abrahamic blessing replacing Israel has dominated the church since about 400 AD. This concept has influenced the majority of non catholic churches to some degree down through history. Like it or not she is the "mother church" even though each branch on the family tree has adjusted their individual theologies somewhat to fit their specific interpretations since then.

From the Apostle Paul - “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Romans 11:7-24)

Your perspectives are coming from the passage "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." - Didn’t know that "church" was the proper term - since Jesus was Jewish and had been going to synagogue. I know that pretty lucid - but I had to put that out there.

However, the main point being the "KEYS" (Matthew 13:52) - and any person would know that the "righteous" had the keys to the storehouse - who bring out both the old and the new...That key is Christ Himself, Christ is the Key to Open the Scriptural Treasury, the key to understanding all the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments and all 613 laws of the Torah, including the history, the psalms and the prophecies is Jesus the Messiah. Wouldn't you agree " Christ is a treasure hidden in the scriptures, since he was signified by means of types and parables that, humanly speaking, could not be understood before the fulfillment of the things that were prophesied – in other words, before the coming of Christ…"

"Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy." LINK

I appreciate your insights Mitzi, You are a very intelligent insightful and spiritually focused person. I will have to say that I DO hold this Root church responsible for much of the pollution present in the church today. I believe she will be the core of" Mystery Babylon mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" in these last days. We who believe are commanded to depart from the false system so that we do not share in her judgements, By God Himself!

You're welcome - I appreciated that you gave me this chance to write and converse with you. Again, thanks.

However, I feel that you cannot blame the church for the way "religion" has developed (being that all have their own separate interpretations (Theological thoughts) /congregations/believers)) - it's not really the blame game. We are "all" are responsible for our faith and growth - anyone can walk away "if" a denomination or a priest or clergy is not teaching the "Word" of God as it should be – and can turn in those “who” are swaying away from those teachings of Christ – and I think they have. We, nor any other denomination, hold captives - people are not in a state of prison. We are "free" in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, has been guilty, of great effronteries but has dealt with them either altogether or one at a time. The Church is still going through the process of a good cleaning out and this was coming and still continues. There are many "good" teacher/priest/laity, who have taken the brunt end of these criticisms...However, with punishment must come reconciliation, a gathering back, sort of speak, Job 5:18 "For He wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal." See (1 Samuel 2 -Hannah’s Prayer)


As I've said, on another thread, ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI:

"In truth, the times in which we live demand a new missionary vigour on the part of Christians who are called to form a mature laity, identified with the Church and sensitive to the complex transformations taking place in our world. " LINK


The Church, (and as a whole), and in view of other denominations must reciprocate the understanding of what the people are hungry for and also the needs of the people at this time (necessities of life). There will (always) be growth - as with the Word of God. This is a “much” different world we live in today, but the church (the administrators and those in position of authority) were not responsible for much of it. What is surprising, and when you read the Acts of the Apostle – much has to do with Paul’s assertiveness and Peter’s boldness, as to the other Apostles. Is it the church’s position on this? Yes. There is a calling out to those in other denomination to feel that – and there is an assertiveness to respond to it. …..Europe, and here in America, now understands with Freedoms come responsibilities and accountability – no more blame game.

[jo7241974]

Shalom!

Yes I completely agree that Judaism as well as Christianity have strayed far in different directions and that this seperation is man made. As a Messianic I stand somewhere in between these two groups,mostly rejected by both...lol! It is a very difficult thing to bridge the gap sometimes. Christians tend to reject anyone who embraces Torah while Jews mostly reject embracing Jesus as their Messiah.From a Jewish perspective Christians are rejecting God's word (Torah) Obviously both groups are blind to some degree. thousands of years of persecution have left the Jews with a bad taste in their mouths for Christianity. Who can really blame them? I see Jesus as the embodiment of Torah. God's standard of rightiousness, that He lived out fully! I see no discrepency between Law and Grace.They are not opposites as many believe. The opposite of Law is not grace! The opposite of Law is lawlessness! Both rightiousness and mercy are aspects of the nature of God. Torah points to God's rightiousness and Jesus to His mercy/grace. Both aspects will be very evident when he returns to rule as King of this planet during the coming 1000 year reign before the final judgement.

Just wanted to clarify that I am very aware of the errors of Judaism as well as much of Christianity.But since this forum is mainly made up of Christians just delt with that aspect mainly.

Blessings

Hi 4 Zion,

I am sorry to be so late in responding. I also suffer rejection from most of Christendom. I see much wisdom in your words and can see that the Holy Spirit is with you. I agree with you that we are ALL blind to some degree. I am blind to any knowledge I still lack - which is why I don't "know" it yet. I have faith, however, that when I am ready, more Truth will be revealed to me through the Holy Spirit who leads us to all Truth. It is most likely that while I am in the flesh, I will never be ready for all of the Truth. Yet, while I am still here in my physical body, my mind and my heart are open and listening to what God sees fit to teach me about His Kingdom. My spirit is constantly being led by the Holy Spirit. I have not knowingly closed any doors by listening to the precepts of man. I sense the same thing about you.

Thank you for sharing your comments!! I rejoice with you in the knowledge that our Lord and Savior lives!

May God continue to bless you, and may your spiritual understanding and knowledge continue to increase.

Love,

jo

[jo7241974]

Hi 4 Zion and Shalom;


Western culture - can you be a little more specific on that? Ireland, France, U.K, United State - when you write (post) that the western culture has more dominance over the others, all cultures within the church have to follow the same doctrine. Western and Eastern church (as I come from the Eastern - Czechoslovakia) follows the same as the Western - if you're thinking in a political sphere of the church, one dominates over the other - than I would say - you're wrong. Example of dominance can be in a theological way - or an intellectual way, and I haven't seen that in the church.

I've have come from being raised as a Catholic, growing up within a Eastern culture (at home - through my relatives), and have celebrated the traditions (at Christmas - Houska bread (must like Traditional egg bread for the Jewish Sabbath - The Houska is a sweet bread but braided the same way), I've (also) been apart of a Jewish background - by descent, history and grandparent (of long ago) from (and I believed - Spain) although from Portugal (because of the name - it's more from Jews of Portugal)...these are just a few named things.

Although, I have somewhat of a connection - as you, yourself, do - as you seem to be practicing the Messianic faith. However, what had been long ago, has been (and I felt - even on the board) drained - or somewhat extracted in a personable way - not in a sense of a connection toward heritage. Although, there have been many stories on our end of the table - we knew as a family the path we had to walked. Also, I believe (very strongly) that the connection will return "for all" on our side - as comparing with with the story of Joseph to Jacob, the remark coming from Jacob was monumental "“Now that I have seen your face again, I can die in peace." from father to son. However, the family "and as individuals" need to pursue this quest for themselves and on their "own" for it is a personal journey - some day. I hope and pray they will find it (edit)- As me, myself and I....I wouldn't be having such a strong sense for the Torah - and also seeking (within) for God - if that connection wasn't there. Only I'm like Moshe - 3 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

So it's the "why me" syndrome - and by farrrrrr; my relatives are more educated in religious and also in their academics matters than I would ever hope that I could be - So Again, and I say this in a very metaphorically way "Send Aaron" - LOL. Strong I think the good Lord has pickup on me - but (and as I've said) God "sees" us, not as we see ourselves but as He see us and can teach us, as hard as that maybe.

Paul said it best "26-29 together, “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” Proud people of the world do not know God."

And in Torah "The Maharal (Netivot Olam, Netiv Hatorah, Chapter 2) writes that humility is a character trait that fits the Torah. He explains a striking comment by the Sages. On the verse, “It (the Torah) is not in Heaven,” (Devarim 30:12) they comment (Eiruvin 55a), “You will not find the Torah among arrogant people (‘gasei haruach’).” Arrogant people are limited, because they see themselves as being at a certain level of greatness. The humble person is without limits, boundless, because he does not see himself as anything at all. He is therefore fitting to be the one to be the recipient of the boundless Torah. Just as the Torah is able to spread out, so can the humble person. Just as the Torah is open to and connected to all people, so the humble person is open to and connected to all people. The two are therefore fitting." LINK

"Shemayah and Avtalyon received the tradition from [their teachers]. Shemayah taught: Love work; hate positions of domination; do not make yourself known to the authorities. Avtalyon taught: Sages, be careful of what you say lest you be exiled by the authorities...Hillel and Shammai received the Torah from them. Hillel taught: Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace...Shammai taught: Make the study of Torah your primary occupation... (1:10-15)" LINK

I'm sure others on the board can elaborate more precisely about history of the Church than I can. However, yesterday, I had listened to a speaker on the radio who had talked about this same subject - Oxford graduate and has many conversations or inter-dialect with evangelist (Protestants). Understanding that there is a "deep" sentiment (or resentment) for Catholics - which this resentment for the church - and from the speakers thoughts - has started to diminish, some what, but this had been deeply rooted for years. However, the dialogue is a good beginning between denominations and that is the most important part. What has happened in the past - is the past. We must fix the future of the church on both ends - understandable most of the quarrel is on theology - The passage that comes up and has been a source of conflict -

Luke 24:

So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

From the Apostle Paul - “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Romans 11:7-24)

Your perspectives are coming from the passage "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." - Didn’t know that "church" was the proper term - since Jesus was Jewish and had been going to synagogue. I know that pretty lucid - but I had to put that out there.

However, the main point being the "KEYS" (Matthew 13:52) - and any person would know that the "righteous" had the keys to the storehouse - who bring out both the old and the new...That key is Christ Himself, Christ is the Key to Open the Scriptural Treasury, the key to understanding all the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments and all 613 laws of the Torah, including the history, the psalms and the prophecies is Jesus the Messiah. Wouldn't you agree " Christ is a treasure hidden in the scriptures, since he was signified by means of types and parables that, humanly speaking, could not be understood before the fulfillment of the things that were prophesied – in other words, before the coming of Christ…"

"Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy." LINK

You're welcome - I appreciated that you gave me this chance to write and converse with you. Again, thanks.

However, I feel that you cannot blame the church for the way "religion" has developed (being that all have their own separate interpretations (Theological thoughts) /congregations/believers)) - it's not really the blame game. We are "all" are responsible for our faith and growth - anyone can walk away "if" a denomination or a priest or clergy is not teaching the "Word" of God as it should be – and can turn in those “who” are swaying away from those teachings of Christ – and I think they have. We, nor any other denomination, hold captives - people are not in a state of prison. We are "free" in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, has been guilty, of great effronteries but has dealt with them either altogether or one at a time. The Church is still going through the process of a good cleaning out and this was coming and still continues. There are many "good" teacher/priest/laity, who have taken the brunt end of these criticisms...However, with punishment must come reconciliation, a gathering back, sort of speak, Job 5:18 "For He wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal." See (1 Samuel 2 -Hannah’s Prayer)


As I've said, on another thread, ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI:

"In truth, the times in which we live demand a new missionary vigour on the part of Christians who are called to form a mature laity, identified with the Church and sensitive to the complex transformations taking place in our world. " LINK


The Church, (and as a whole), and in view of other denominations must reciprocate the understanding of what the people are hungry for and also the needs of the people at this time (necessities of life). There will (always) be growth - as with the Word of God. This is a “much” different world we live in today, but the church (the administrators and those in position of authority) were not responsible for much of it. What is surprising, and when you read the Acts of the Apostle – much has to do with Paul’s assertiveness and Peter’s boldness, as to the other Apostles. Is it the church’s position on this? Yes. There is a calling out to those in other denomination to feel that – and there is an assertiveness to respond to it. …..Europe, and here in America, now understands with Freedoms come responsibilities and accountability – no more blame game.

Hi Mitzi,

I just wanted to say that I can feel your love for our Savior AND your love for others.

God bless!

jo

[4 Zion]

Shalom!

Thank you all for the comments to this post. Always good to see the perspectives of other posters. Just wanted to reply briefly as my time will be limited today for Shabbat
.

Western culture - can you be a little more specific on that? Ireland, France, U.K, United State - when you write (post) that the western culture has more dominance over the others, all cultures within the church have to follow the same doctrine. Western and Eastern church (as I come from the Eastern - Czechoslovakia) follows the same as the Western - if you're thinking in a political sphere of the church, one dominates over the other - than I would say - you're wrong. Example of dominance can be in a theological way - or an intellectual way, and I haven't seen that in the church.

Yes the main doctrines are of course foundational to the churchs. Virgin birth, Diety of Jesus, heaven, hell, and so on. Sometimes the means of salvation by faith would be interpreted differantly by differant groups. For instance keeping and participating in the sacraments as a means of salvation. Or being part of a particular faith and accepting the theology of one specific church and excluding others outside of it. This is what lead to much persecution through the ages. Almost all the countries of of western Europe were part of the Roman empire during its hayday. The influence of the Roman empire can be seen in the archetecture and road systems throughout Europe to this day . Much of the progress of Europe was greatly due to the Roman /Greek culture. Education and language being a huge part of that. The Greek mind and education of that time was very analytical and that aspect of education of course influenced the entire western cultures and the offshoots of it through history. US, Canada, S. America ,Africa etc. Our American educational systems were founded on the Greek mindset predominately as are the educations of our Seminaries and Bible colleges.The use of Greek as a trade language throughout was essential and added the spread of christianity throughout the western world and parts of the east orthedox world as well. These are all good things for the most part as Europe was basically made up of pagan barbarian tribes prior to this. Geece was Pagan as well just more advanced as a civilization and technology.It is obvious that God uses even the ungodly to accomplish purposes. Well theologies evolve and sometimes it is over many hundreds of years. Influence of church fathers and theologians being primary influences.

However, I feel that you cannot blame the church for the way "religion" has developed (being that all have their own separate interpretations (Theological thoughts) /congregations/believers)) - it's not really the blame game. We are "all" are responsible for our faith and growth - anyone can walk away "if" a denomination or a priest or clergy is not teaching the "Word" of God as it should be – and can turn in those “who” are swaying away from those teachings of Christ – and I think they have. We, nor any other denomination, hold captives - people are not in a state of prison. We are "free" in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, has been guilty, of great effronteries but has dealt with them either altogether or one at a time. The Church is still going through the process of a good cleaning out and this was coming and still continues. There are many "good" teacher/priest/laity, who have taken the brunt end of these criticisms...However, with punishment must come reconciliation, a gathering back, sort of speak, Job 5:18 "For He wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal." See (1 Samuel 2 -Hannah’s Prayer)

Blame isn't really the issue as far as the aspect that each group needs to take responsibility for their own theologies. The cleaning out process has barely begun as far as I can see. I suppose the reformation can be viewed in that light. The sexual abuses of involved with the doctrine of celebacy should have been delt with many centuries ago but it wasn't until it became a public outcry because of media coverage. That this church began to deal with it. The persecutions and slaughter of untold numbers of peoples that were not of the catholic faith included forced conversions and death to those they held dominance over. The Jewish people of Spain are another example. Convert or leave! If you didn't do so you would be tortured to death or recant. The complacency during the Nazi holocost is also an issue. Even the crusades continue to impact ministries to Muslims. These are not superficial things that can be delt with with a simple statement from the leadership of a specific "church". Having said that i dont expect anything beyond what has been acknowedged publically by the Papal see. But the issues are really about acountability and the whole church is involved with this to bring light. These are issues that have affected humans throughout history and continue to plague the ministries of Christianity to this day. The world outside sees "the church" as a whole. So when Muslims or Jews or even athiests look at crimes against humanity they lump Christianity into the same group. All of us are impacted to some degree. The point is we can't atone for these things. But we all bear the effects of them when we minister to others. I specifically see it in ministering to Jewish people and trying to convince them the Jesus of Christianity is their true Messiah.

However, the main point being the "KEYS" (Matthew 13:52) - and any person would know that the "righteous" had the keys to the storehouse - who bring out both the old and the new...That key is Christ Himself, Christ is the Key to Open the Scriptural Treasury, the key to understanding all the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments and all 613 laws of the Torah, including the history, the psalms and the prophecies is Jesus the Messiah. Wouldn't you agree " Christ is a treasure hidden in the scriptures, since he was signified by means of types and parables that, humanly speaking, could not be understood before the fulfillment of the things that were prophesied – in other words, before the coming of Christ…"

Yes Messiah is the Key! And yes the gospel is clearly displayed in types and foresahadowings through out the word Tanak Both the Law and the Prophets point to Him. They are all esential to our complete understanding of Messiah and His continued ministry throughout the ages. The tendancy to simply take what is written in the NT and discard most of the earlier scripture unless portions are used to support specific theologies leads to a distorted perspective in my opinion.Most have built theologies based entirely on interpretations of the epistles and gospels. Sometimes taking passages completely out of context to support views. I see this as wreckless theology. The entire body of scripture is a whole from Genesis to Revelation. The apostles had no scripture to teach from and frame the understanding of Jesus and salvation except the existing OT scriptures. I think that perspective is often missed and as a result many are at odds with the OT.

Ok I'm running out of time so will
send my blessings for a peacefull Sabbath.

Shalom!