Reform Judaism

[2 Timothy 1:7]

Is anyone personally familiar with it? Last night I went to a Reform Jewish Synagogue because they had a meeting titled, "Looking into the Christian Bible." I was shocked not at how anti-Christian they were (because I expected that), but at what they believe today as Jews! Last night they claimed that reform Jews believe in: no heaven/hell, Satan is a servant of God (i.e. God uses Satan to make bad things happen to people because we always learn something good out of the bad things that happen to us [Wow! That really blew my mind!]), it was nothing more than a talking snake (reptile) that deceived Eve, there is no such thing as sin, Messiah won't come from a virgin birth (they saw in Hebrew it doesn't actually mean an actual virgin), "Christians say the law is a curse", "all or most Christians are anti-Semetic", Constantine decided what books would be in the NT, and the Christian idea of salvation is not only ridiculous, but also laughable (as they were all mockingly doing last night). And this is really just to list a few. My goal last night was to see what Reform Jews really believe today, not to debate, especially since I was not prepared for this. I am taking Hebrew lessons at this synagogue, and I want to be able to share the gospel with them. I wasn't prepared for last night, but I would appreciate any comments from any of you of how I can be prepared for this in the future. Even though I know it will all mean nothing to them if their hearts are not convicted of their sin. Faith is key, I know this, but I want to be able to give an answer to the ridiculous claims they label Christians/Jesus with. Keep in mind, the leaders really seem to be the ones claiming Reform Jews believe this, but I think the members of the congregation (at least this one I am going to), seem to be merely following what their leaders are saying and are very easily influenced. Thus, I hope I can influence them for their better, for their salvation.

[RAP]

There are three primary divisions of Judism:

Orthodox - tranditionalist and Pharisaical. Noted for their very modest dress, broad hats, phylacteries, etc.
Conservative - somewhat less strict than Orthodox
Reform - modernist - pretty much anything goes. A lot like mainline protestant denominations.

There is a fourth segment that is is very modern - Reconstructionism. It is essentially anti-revelation and anti-tradition. The orthodox consider it to be heresy.

There is a whole lot more but that would take much time and space. Suggest that you Wiki the various segments for full detail.

Maranatha!

[2 Timothy 1:7]

RAP, Thank you for the reply. I am aware of the different divisions of Judaism and I have specifically read up on Reform Judaism, but I was surprised to find that when you actually talk to them you find that what they believe is basically the direct opposite of what the OT teaches, or so at least the ones I have talked to. In particular, an elderly lady I have spoken to, (who was raised orthodox and moved to Israel during WWII when her father was actually killed by the Nazi's, but moved to America after the war and it was then that she became a Reform Jew), who has basically come to believe that the Bible is nothing more than a myth, but still does believe the God of the Jews exists. This is common among the Reform Jews I have spoken to. I was actually wanting to know everyone's thoughts on the accusations against Christians that they brought up.

IHA, Thank you also for the reply. That is interesting to know that Christians have been known to use the Orthodox interpretation.

I guess I have made the subject too broad. There are two specific arguments they came up with that particularly interests me:

1) The virgin birth. Last night they were saying that the first books of the NT that was written was Paul's letters and Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus, but that the book of Matthew and Luke come later, so they say that Christians later made up a myth about Jesus being born of a virgin. Also that in Isaiah 7:14 in the Hebrew language, the word which we translate "virgin" does not actually mean a virgin, but just a young women. BUT, was the OT translated into Greek before Christ was born on the earth? Did they translate Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word of virgin?

2) The law. They say that Christians say that the law is a curse, because Paul said the Jews are "under the law" in a negative way. I'm sure they are misunderstanding Paul's meaning in Galatians when he quotes from Deuteronomy that cursed is the one who does not follow the words of the law (or something to that effect)? Does the Lord not say that the law is good and perfect?

IHA:"scripture says, blindnes in part has is Israel's present condition."

Yes, this is very evident

IHA:"Nevertheless, some do come to a saving knowledge in our Lord Jesus Christ."

And praise His name for this!

[2 Timothy 1:7]

Thank you IHA. Very informative and helpful.

IHA:"The late dating of the gospels is pure speculation mainly put forth to disqualify the eyewitness account of Matthew assuming it too late for his personal authorship. The Didache quotes Matthew. If the Didache is allowed the feasible early date of 50 or 60 AD it places Matthew's writing contemporary with Paul's and preserves the conservative view of Matthew's authorship. The Rabbi probably didn't mention that."

No, the guest speaker did not! Yes, surprisingly he was not a Rabbi, in fact he didn't have any credentials in theology at all. Although the Rabbi was present with him there (but she knew absolutely nothing about Christianity). The speaker was raised Catholic, got sucked into the Jesus movement in the 70's and entered the evangelicals (as he said), but easily left that for Reform Judaism, mainly because he found the NT references of the OT to be false. Yes, he also denied the personal authorship of Matthew. He gave credit to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea for placing Matthew as the author of that gospel.

[2 Timothy 1:7]

Anyone have any thoughts about the question on the law?

[Keith Sherwood]

We know Luke was written during Paul's imprisoment at Caeserea or completed within 2 years after

I think there is strong reasons to believe Mark was completed in its written form at the same time

I believe Matthew was before that and the first gospel - however some think it was completed aound the same time as Luke and Mark

This does not mean that oraly the teachings of the gospels were not common knowledge within the church before the completed documents - evidently they were but not of necessity known in the orderly manner of the gospels

However there are lots of repetative phrases in Matthew that proves it was written especialy to be memorized in its correct order

Based on the context of the 2 Tim mention of Mark - it seems Mark was a key person in compilation of written records and ability to check for accuracy - I suspect his ability in composition was outstanding as was his knowledge (only a knowledgable writer can be as brief and direct as Marks gospel is - such would be beyond a mildly skilled person) and it is highly likely that Matthew was helped by Mark in his gospel - it is not that Mark was a ghost writer but certainly had outstanding skills in that direction - certainly they knew each other and were at Jerusalem together

No one would doubt that john was an eye witness but his gospel was the last being written after the demolition of the political and social fabric of Israel by Titus and the continueing of that campaighn for another four years until the suicides of Masada

However what we do know is that the first imprisoment of Paul and his defence of not just himself but all Christianity before Nero caused a watershed of the literature that now makes up much of the New Testament

Keith

[jtheb]

I had a jewisj friend who said that there were four typres of judaism.
Orthodox . eveything is forbidden unless specifically permitted.
Reformed. Evrtyhing is permitted unless specifically fobidden.
Modern. Everything is permitted even if forbidden
Ultraorthodox. Everyhting is forbidden even if it is permitted.

[2 Timothy 1:7]

Keith,
You said, "We know Luke was written during Paul's imprisoment at Caeserea or completed within 2 years after. I think there is strong reasons to believe Mark was completed in its written form at the same time. I believe Matthew was before that and the first gospel - however some think it was completed aound the same time as Luke and Mark "

What resources have you personally used to back this up?

And interesting point on Mark - thanks!

jtheb,
So funny, but so true!

[jpurssey]

Keith,
You said, "We know Luke was written during Paul's imprisoment at Caeserea or completed within 2 years after. I think there is strong reasons to believe Mark was completed in its written form at the same time. I believe Matthew was before that and the first gospel - however some think it was completed aound the same time as Luke and Mark "

What resources have you personally used to back this up?

Especially as it is pretty likely that both Matthew and Luke have reworked some of Mark's material.

[Keith Sherwood]

I think it is very unlikely - though it is a modern theory - which does not seem to take into account that the intimate nature of their friendship and locality was the real influence upon the phraseology

I believe all the early church fathers stated that Matthew was the first and they were nearer to the action than clever modern scholars.

Modern scholars do not think of the natural real life relationship that the two had, but would rather invent a rather farfetched theory that takes no account of natural friendship, influence and maybe mutual consultation

The unique internal references in Matthews gospel to ‘scribe’ would indicate that - for he was the Lords scribe.
The professional scribe who wanted to add to his prestige, could not pay the price of hatred and disdain. but the hated tax gatherer was ideal for such a task 'come follow me' and he gave up everything and followed, and the Lord had his scribe who would bring out old and new treasures

Keith