posted 09-17-1999 04:21 PM            

One of the main problems with Messianic Judaism in the past has been that
unlike Rabbinic Judaism there hs been no vehicle for conversion to Judaism.
This has been a real problem because many Messianic Organizations withhold
certain offices for Jews only and require congregations to have a certain
percentage of Jews. Since there is no vehicle for conversion, non-Jews are
relegated forever to sceond-class status. They can never convert and never
participate fully. This differs not only with Rabbinic Judaism but it is
unbiblical as well.

Within the Netzarim/Nazarene (Yahwist) Judaism movement we are changing this. The
International Nazarene Beit Din has just passed a conversion halachah.
Persons who complete this conversion process will be halachicly regarded as
Jewish within Nazarene Judaism.

I need to clarify two things:

1. These conversions are NOT accepted for immigration to
Israel (they only accept Orthodox Conversions)

2. This halachah is for a person to be halachicly regarded as Jewish
and is NOT a process to make a person "saved".

If you are interested in seeking a conversion you should email
sanj@nazarene.net

The complete halachah is below:

The International Nazarene Beit Din has passed a conversion halachah.

1. Candidate must state and demonstrate that they seek conversion on
conviction alone and has no other motives.
2. Candidate must pledge complete and unreserved commitment to the Torah
and to the People of Israel.
A. Candidate must complete or "test out" of a conversion course
which will teach them the commitments of the covenant and the
history and culture of the people whom they are joining.
3. A male seeking conversion must be circumcised.
A. Circumcision must be performed in the presence of three
witnesses.
B. A candidate with a non-religious circumcision must undergo
HATAFAT DAM B'RIT the ritual drawing of blood from the region.
C. The candidate is given time to recover.
4. Candidate must undergo a ritual immersion (t'vilah).
A. This must be performed before three witnesses.
B. The candidate then recites the ritual prayer for immersions.
C. This is followed by a second immersion.
5. Candidate is given an new, Hebrew name.
6. Conversion must be officiated by a person having s'mikhah from the
beit-din.

posted 09-17-1999 05:55 PM            

wasn't it Rav Shaul who wrote;

quote:

---

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without El in the world:

But now in Messiah Yahshuah ye who sometimes were far aff are made nigh by the blood of Messiah.

For HE IS our shalom, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making shalom;

And that he might reconcile both unto El in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

And came and preached shalom to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

For through him we both have access by one spirit unto the father.

NOW THEREFORE YE ARE NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, BUT FELLOWCITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS, AND OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF YAH;

---

I resent the insinuation that I have to "be converted" through some ritual that man has devised when I already have done so through Ruach HaCodesh, through his written scriptures.

Funny, I didn't see anything written in this passage(Ephesians ch.2) about receiving permission from the 70 elders.

quote:

---

Since there is no vehicle for conversion, non-Jews are
relegated forever to sceond-class status. They can never convert and never
participate fully. This differs not only with Rabbinic Judaism but it is
unbiblical as well.

---

No kidding?! About it being un-biblical I mean.

quote:

---

2. Candidate must pledge complete and unreserved commitment to the Torah
and to the People of Israel.

---

Hmmmm. Does this mean swearing allegiance to the Talmud and every teaching of the Beit Din?

quote:

---

B. A candidate with a non-religious circumcision must undergo
HATAFAT DAM B'RIT the ritual drawing of blood from the region

---

Pray tell J.T, where in the written Torah(which is where basis for all Hallachic decisions are to be based on.....supposedly.) is this mitzvot?

quote:

---

B. The candidate then recites the ritual prayer for immersions.

---

This whole thing smacks of elitism.

quote:

---

For ye are all the children of El by faith in Yahshua Messiah.

For as many of you as have been baptised into Messiah Yashua have put on Messiah. (Which part of Yashua isn't converted?)

There is neither Jew nowr Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Messiah Yashua.

And if ye be Messiah's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heir's according to the promise.

---

posted 09-17-1999 08:02 PM           

Brother do I ever hear you!

Hey you forgot to asked the merchant preacher ---
"how much is this one going to cost $$$$$"

posted 09-17-1999 08:51 PM            

Need I say more?

posted 09-17-1999 10:26 PM            

we are not speaking of conversion from unsaved to saved but of gentile to Jew.

>Funny, I didn't see anything written in this
>passage(Ephesians ch.2) about receiving
>permission from the 70 elders.

Largely because it does not address the issue of a person becoming Jewish.

posted 09-17-1999 10:31 PM            

No.

posted 09-17-1999 10:39 PM            

No one insinuated that anyone "had to" do anything. The halachah involved only offers this process to those who wish to do so. It is by no means presented as a "have to" but rather as a "you may if you choose".

It is beyond me why anyone would be so oposed to this halachah. I can understand not wanting to do it yourself but since the halachah is only an offer to open up a choice I cannot see why you would not want others to have the choice.

posted 09-17-1999 11:55 PM           

Hey james!

You don't understand that there is difference.

Quote;

"Your speaking of becoming a believer,
I am speaking of becoming a Jew."

Guess what James you need to understand the difference!

And please don't give me anymore of that "I am a Jew" # either.

You have about riden that horse into the ground.

It's about time That the Jews accept the fact that they haven't
been called by the Name of Yisrael since the kingdom was divided.

It's about time that the Pharisic Rabbi's quit teaching the people
of Yahuwdim that they are Jews,
and that their religion is Judaism.

Look James's I understand you have invested a lot of time
and money into your business venture.

But guess what James,money is not everything!

And you can aways start over.

posted 09-18-1999 01:16 AM         

Roma 2:25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. 26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? 27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of Elohim.

Gala 3:29 And if ye are Messiah's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

Disciple of Yahshua

posted 09-18-1999 11:53 AM            

25–26 On the one hand, circumcision, taken as symbolic of being Jewish but recalling the covenant with Avraham in particular, is indeed of value, as explained in 3:1–2, 9:4–5, 11:11–32—but only if you do what Torah says. But if you are a transgressor of Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision! You have thrown away everything your Jewishness stands for. By despising God and his Law you have cut yourself off from his promises and from his people, spiritually, even though biological and cultural attachments remain. The reality behind the symbol has departed. (On the significance of circumcision see Ac 15:1N, 16:3.)
On the other hand, if an uncircumcised man, a Gentile, keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, … his physical uncircumcision will be counted as spiritual circumcision, “circumcision of the heart” (v. 29; the imagery comes from Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6; Jeremiah 9:24–25(25–26); compare Ac 7:51&N). He will then become an heir to promises of the covenant with Avraham (this theme is resumed in chapter 4; also in Ga 3:6–29). See vv. 14–16.

27 Sha’ul presses his case against sanctimoniousness in general and its Jewish form in particular. The Greek word “krinei” may be rendered “will judge,” “is judging,” or, as here, “will, by his very existence and manifestly righteous behavior, stand as a continual judgment.”

28–29 Following is a very literal rendering of these Jewishly significant verses:

“For not the in-the-open [a] Jew is, and not the in-the-open in flesh circumcision. On the contrary, the in-the-secret [is a] Jew; and circumcision of heart, in spirit not letter; of whom the praise [is] not from people but from God.”

This passage is significant for Messianic Judaism because it answers authoritatively the perennial question facing the Jewish community at large and the State of Israel in particular, “Who is a Jew?” The English word “Jew” and the Greek word “Ioudaios” transliterate Hebrew YFor the real Jew is not merely Jewish outwardly. Here are four possible interpretations; I think Sha’ul would disagree with the first, agree with the ideas of the second and third, but say that in this passage he means the fourth.

(1) “Being born to a Jewish family does not make one a Jew.” Moishe Rosen, leader of the organization Jews for Jesus, is fond of quipping, “Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being born in a bagel factory makes you a bagel.” This is true because being a Christian or a Messianic Jew requires faith, which is not transmitted biologically; trusting Yeshua makes anyone a child of God (8:14–15), but, as a Protestant cliché has it, “God has no grandchildren.” However, this interpretation of our text contradicts the halakhic definition of a Jew as the child of a Jewish mother or a person converted to Judaism. While Sha’ul does not necessarily bind himself to the rulings of the P(2) “Being born to a Jewish family does not guarantee that one will be a good Jew, a real Jew, one who praises God.” Sha’ul would certainly endorse this, but in context such a statement seems weak. The Greek phrase literally translated “in-the-open” can indeed mean “passively in the open, concerning externals,” hence, “being born to a Jewish family,” which is the passive external distinctive of Jews. But it can also mean “actively in the open, making a public display,” which leads to:

(3) “The born Jew who puts on a show of his Jewishness is not behaving the way a Jew should; he is not a good Jew, a real Jew, one who praises God.” Sha’ul would agree with this too, but the context suggests he goes further and says:

(4) “The born Jew who puts on a show of his Jewishness is not a Jew at all!” He is not a God-praiser in any sense and therefore forfeits his right to be considered a Jew in God’s sight. Instead he boasts about God’s gifts as if they were his own achievements (vv. 17–20) and hypocritically teaches God’s Torah to others while violating it himself (vv. 21–23, 25, 27). God will exclude such a one from the promises he has made to the Jewish people (see chapters 9–11). (However, if he repents, gives up his pride and sanctimonious cant, and comes to acknowledge Yeshua as his Savior, Lord and Messiah, he will be “grafted back into his own olive tree” (11:24)—so there is a sense in which his Jewishness remains, because it is still “his own olive tree.” But in his present state he is a branch cut off from the tree, hence not a Jew. See 11:23–24.) This radical sense is concordant with v. 25 (“your circumcision has become uncircumcision”) and with Sha’ul’s opposition to a Jew’s relying on his Jewishness for assurance of salvation (see vv. 9–12).

True circumcision is not only external and physical. Or: “Circumcision is not a matter of boasting about the fact that a physical operation has been performed.”
On the contrary, the real Jew is one inwardly (compare Mt 6:5–6, 23:3–7); and true circumcision is of the heart, spiritual not literal. (The metaphor of heart circumcision is from the Tanakh; see vv. 25–26 above.) It is obvious that in v. 28 the people spoken of as not real Jews are in fact born Jews, for no one needs to be told that Gentiles are not Jews. But in this passage, exactly who is a real Jew? Is Sha’ul talking about born Jews who are also born again (Yn 3:3), that is, about Messianic Jews? Or is he making a radical and dramatic assertion that some Gentiles (as well as some born Jews) are actually Jews in God’s sight by virtue of being Jews inwardly, having circumcised hearts that offer praise to God? In other words, is he saying that both Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are Jews?
In favor of the latter idea, that born-again Gentiles are real Jews, real God-praisers and inheritors of promises made to the Jewish people, are the following arguments:

(1) The most immediate context (vv. 24–27) deals with Gentiles and presents a series of points that lead naturally to that conclusion. Verse 26 says that an uncircumcised man who keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah will have his uncircumcision counted as circumcision. Verse 27 says that the uncircumcised man who obeys the Torah stands as a continual judgment against the circumcised man who has the Torah’s guidance available to him but disobeys it. Thus a certain class of Gentiles is doing what a real Jew should do; it is then but a short step to asserting that, since the essence of the matter is “spiritual not literal,” such Gentiles are in fact Jews. (A point of formal support: v. 25 stands in the same complementary logical relationship to v. 26 as v. 28 does to v. 29.)

(2) If the book of Romans as a whole is the context, we find throughout it the theme that Jews and Gentiles are equal before God in regard to salvation (1:16&N). So if “real Jew” means the same thing as “saved person,” then a Gentile can be a real Jew.

(3) The equality of Jews and Gentiles before God recurs as a theme in Sha’ul’s other letters. In the Messiah “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (Ga 3:28, Co 3:11). The m(4) In two other passages (in other letters) Sha’ul makes very similar assertions. At Pp 3:3, after criticizing certain Messianic Jewish heretics, he says, “For it is we who are the Circumcised, we who worship by the Spirit of God and make our boast in the Messiah Yeshua! We do not put confidence in human qualifications ….” At Ga 6:15–16, at the end of an entire letter devoted to the issue of salvation by faith, he writes, “Neither being circumcised nor being uncircumcised matters; what matters is being a new creation. And as many as order their lives by this rule, shalom upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (See notes to both passages.)

In favor of the idea that, in the sense of these verses, the only real Jews are born-again Jews, and that born-again Gentiles are indeed saved but not by virtue of that fact Jews, are these arguments:

(1) The intermediate context (2:17–3:20) is discussing not Gentiles but Jews. At 2:17–24 Sha’ul describes a Jew who ought not to be considered a Jew. Although he does bring in the effect of such a person on Gentiles in v. 24 and continues talking about Gentiles in vv. 25–27, this discussion of Gentiles is subordinate; for the verses following this passage return to analyzing the significance of being Jewish (3:1–20). Since v. 28 has already returned to the subject of born Jews, v. 29 too should be understood as referring to born Jews—especially since 3:1–2 clearly refers to born Jews (“What advantage has the [born] Jew [not the saved Gentile]? … Much … !”).

(2) Although Jews and Gentiles are equal as regards salvation, there are other distinctions between them, as Sha’ul acknowledges immediately (3:1–2) and later (9:4–5, and especially 11:28–29). One distinctive (Sha’ul does not deal with it, but Yeshua does at Lk 21:20–24), for example, is that the Jewish people are to inherit the Land of Israel in perpetuity. This is a promise to physical or national Israel that has not yet been entirely fulfilled, but it will be. No one expects the Land to be inherited by all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike. Another distinctive is the Jew’s relationship with the Torah. About this Sha’ul has much to say, both in this letter and elsewhere. But it is clear from the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15:20) that the Gentile believer’s relationship with the Torah was different from that of the Jewish believer. Many notes in this commentary address this matter. Because of these distinctives remaining to the Jewish people Sha’ul would not cloud the question by such a peculiar assertion as, “Some Gentiles are Jews.”

(3) The two passages quoted above (in argument (4)) are as ambiguous as the present one as to whether they refer to born-again Jews or to all believers; for detailed discussion see Pp 3:3N, Ga 6:16N.

posted 09-18-1999 02:29 PM            

Personnally, I voted against it. Not because of the circumcision, but because of the lack of explanation for the why's and wherefore's. The document is to ambiguous and raaises more questions than it answers. Plus it is insufficient in its explanation as to why someone should or shouldn't go through the conversion process. It doesn't explain what a "valid" circumcision is, and what it is not.

Plus I see no need for or the HATAFAT DAM B'RIT, if a person is circumcised then it is a done deal. The riual cutting only serves to be a sign in the eyes of men and denies the ability of Yahweh to have called that person from birth, therefore causing his parents to have him circumcised whether they understood why or not.

There are other reasons I disagreed with it too... but the continued debate is making me weary and frustrated. I have hopes that the Beit Din will reconsider this issue and revise its decision. I, also, have hopes that the resigned member will rejoin. His absense and lack of imput to future decisions will be sorely missed.

posted 09-18-1999 03:44 PM            

I am confused as to what profit this would be.
It seems to very unscriptural, and unecassary.
Could you give Scripture references as to why this is done?
Is this a requirement for people to fellowship in your organization?

posted 09-18-1999 04:18 PM            

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:30:19 -0400
From: "Rav Mikha'el" mikhae-@sprynet.com
Subject: conversion
To: James Trimm jstrim-@swbell.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

Shalom James, here is my propsed letter; If you find it acceptable as is
you are welcome to forward it yourself to all the relevent lists. If you
would like to discuss some of the wording, send it back with your proposal.
I am glad we had our conversation and have clarified some of the relavent
issues. Shabbat Shalom.

To the International Nazarene Beit Din, and to all my brothers and sisters,

The conversion halacha has created quite a bit of confusion and has
led to some unforseen difficulties and conflicts, of which I am
representative. These conflicts have arisen because of misunderstandings
regarding the implications of this halacha. I had made my assumptions
about the implications based on the discussions we have had since May on
this issue. The presentation of the halsacha seemed to imply to me, and
not a few of you, that this was a halacha detailing conversion to Nazarene
Judaism, that in order to be part of the community one had to go through
this procedure. After a long conversation with Dr. Trimm, who wrote the
halacha and informed me of his original intentions, I found this assumption
was incorrect.
The following explanation is offered, and is approved of by Dr. Trimm,
and is one I find satisfactory. This halacha was designed only to give
those who desire to do so the opportunity to convert to Judaism as such
conversion has been understood in Judaism for over 2000 years. They may do
so for a variety of reasons including a desire to make recognized aliyah.
This halacha does not define one as a Nazarene and has no implications
for a Gentile desiring to be a part of the Nazarene Community in any
capacity. The community as it has existed up to this point with Jews and
Gentiles each playing vital roles and contributing as equals will continue.
It is my opinion that the resultant conflict on this issue has been a
result of terms (Jew, Israel, Remnant, New Covenant etc.) being defined in
different ways by people debating the subject and I believe if we all
define the terms in the same way we would find ourselves much closer to
agreement. I also believe that the power inherent in the recreation we
desire has HaSatan seeking our destruction and he has used this occasion to
splinter and divide us through misunderstanding.
With this understanding in mind, as agreed upon by Dr. Trimm and
myself, I am humbly requesting reinstatement to my position on the Beit
Din, if the majority of the members are also in agreement with this
understanding. It is my hope that we can learn from this experience and I
apologize for any disruption I caused on the way to our goal. I do believe
we can grow from this experinece and the clarification it brought about
will unify us and bring about even greater things in the future.
Rav Mikha'el