Brianroy
Sr. Member
 Offline
Posts: 460
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: Jan 25, 2009, 06:28 AM » |
|
Le-havdil isn’t a name, it is a point of distinguishing a time or line of separation, even as a havdalah candle that is lit at the end of Shabbat distinguishes a point in time as a line of separating the old week from the new…the light of a first day, instead of that of an eighth day.
The Le-havdil concept used by Anders is a misapplied Judaizing concept, in which the identity of Christ is reinvented and a mythical figure with an imaginary history comes forth. His concept is nothing less than an attempt of identity theft of Yeshua / Jesus of Nazareth, being based on misapplications. His site sources anti-Jesus JewsforJudaism, which is curious. They are notorious for not answering an issue directly, but reinventing how to create an answer by not answering directly the subject matter in debate. The same tactic is applied by Anders here regarding Le havdil and this other invention (i.e., person) he claims on his own authority.
What sources of history are offered as proof, and what are the quotations, and who is it that for the last 1979 years has consistently offered this “other” Yehoshua of Nazareth as the “real” Jesus? Or is it only a recent invention? In 2006, it was a Polish man from Chicago who visited various forums and posted the same claim as Anders now makes. Was there a claim before 2006? How about before 1506? Can he go back even 500 years? Of course not.
Prof. Charlesworth, despite his credentials, disbelieves an "organized Christianity" prior to "wild-eyed Manes" in the 230s A.D. (as he puts it in BAS "Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism). Bunk. Even a debate from Acts will show an organized Sanhedrin in Christianity from at least 47 A.D., and a minimum of 5 Sanhedrins of 70 in the Roman Empire by the Time of Charlesworth's "wild-eyed Manes" via Patristics.
Anders also promoted Barrie Wilson at another forum. Wilson is one of those who promotes that Paul had no clue as to what the Messiah was, and was scratching his head trying to come up with one. Anyone who reads either the KJV, or the Greek Texts of the NT, be they laity or advanced, can dismiss such nonsense in a dozen verses or less. But that is another topic for another day.
But as the old saying goes, junk in, and junk out. If you want the best sources on Jesus, follow the Simon Greenleaf methodology, and rely on the best and most binding source material available...the Four NT Gospels.
But returning to this "le-Havdil....
So what is Le-havdil in the biblical sense?
Leviticus 20:26:
“You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD , am holy,
and I have set you apart
[va-avdil / vav-alef-beth-dalet-lamed]
from the nations to be my own.”
In the prior two verses, (Leviticus 20:24-25), in “Le Havdil”…
A people set apart from the nations and made holy “hivdalti”
Animals set apart and distinguished as clean from unclean v’hivdaltem” and “hivdalti”
...we read how that people are likened to animals, clean and unclean to be distinguished…much like Matthew’s gospel on the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:32).
In Acts 10:25-28
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The Greek word in question for Acts 10:28's "unlawful" is "a-themiton", and appears only here and in I Peter 4:3,where it is translated by the KJV in I Peter 4:3 as "abominable" (in relation to idolatry).
In the extra-biblical use of this Greek word without the negating alpha-privative, we see that Josephus, Philo, and Diognetus use it to Themitos to tell us of something that is considered or viewed not morally or spiritually right by practice or custom…not by some binding requirement to do. It is best translated as “it is not right”, as in Diognetus 6:10.
“The soul, when poorly treated with respect to food and drink, becomes all the better;
And so Christians, when punished daily [in this way], increase more and more.
Such is the important position to which G-D has appointed them, and it is not right for them to decline it.” Letter to Diognetus, 6:9-10
In I Peter 4:3, we see that the concept of idolatry "that is not right" is tied into Colossians 3:5, where Paul cites a type of idolatry as being that of covetousness. The concept used by Peter is essentially that getting tied up to a prepossessing state over money by making unseemly associations for the sake of greed, it is not right, be it with those who are believers or unbelievers…such obsessions still are idolatry, because constant focus on wealth replaces the worship of G-D in the life of the individual. Since covetousness encompassesthat idolatry of pursuing wealth with BELIEVERS as well as unbelievers, the internal act itself is "not right"...not the external association with the fellow believerss.
In the NT concept, then, athemitos is likened as if the Greek poneros, or the visualized concept of the Hebraic "toeba" by custom or practice...not by "Mosiac Law or Ordinance".
In Acts 10:22, we read that if Peter had distanced himself from "Gentile" Cornelius, he would NOT have fulfilled Le-Havdil, as clean from unclean, or Jew from Gentile (even as believers of the nations have their own Court at the Temple and subjoin in worship and sacrifice...even if by mediators) because “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth G-D, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews” is not one who would be considered as set apart from Israel, but a Noachide who had joined himself to Israel by means of faith.
Therefore, here, and in the example of Christ’s own willingness to visit a “believing” Centurion having military and civil authority (Matthew 8:5 ff.), we see that the Mosaic Law is fulfilled, in spite of local or regional prejudice to the contrary...and Anders' concept, and that of scholarship who blame Paul for historically joining Gentiles to the Church as if it were a new teaching of his alone...is shown to be erroneous by the NT Text themselves.
Matthew 8:
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
Hence, by the example of Jesus and of Peter, we see that the distinction that Anders and others make, regarding not only Jesus -- but of Paul and early Christianity -- is erroneous conjecture, and perhaps even a bad handling or grasping of actual NT Texts.
Anders also does not appear to be aware, that at least until the early 170s, Irenaeus testifies of a proper passing of Church tradition and history from the Apostles in Against Heresies, 3.1-3; and that Tertullian likewise testifies of successive lines of bishops with established rolls of succession, and entrusted doctrines and Scriptures, were also still present a hundred years after his website's contention of allegedly being altered in (or following) 132-135 CE.
Hope this helps. Peace.
|
Author
