951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

One of the doctrinal issues that I have “wrestled” with – over and over again – during the years is the question of: “Do Christians need to follow the Mosaic law at all?” In other words, is it necessary for Christians to follow the rules and regulations listed by Moses – i.e., Sabbath observance, Kosher dietary laws, festivals, etc?

The primary reason why it has been so difficult for me to “make up my mind” on this issue is because Scripture appears to contradict itself on this issue. In other words, in some cases, Scripture seems to clearly state that Christians do not have to follow the Mosaic law – but in other cases, Scripture seems to explicitly state that the Mosaic law is still in effect!

For example, consider these passages:

Matthew 5:17-19

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 6:13-14

13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 3:31

31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Galatians 3:23-26

23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

To me, the first and third passages certainly seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is still in effect; while the second and fourth passages certainly seem to indicate that it is not in effect. Of course, I do not believe that Scripture ever contradicts itself; so there must be some explanation for this apparent contradiction.

Of course, the two popular doctrines about the relevance of the Mosaic law are as follows:

1. The Mosaic law has been completely abolished – so that now, God is not calling anyone to follow it.

2. The Mosaic law is still in effect – so that God wants all believers to follow it.

However, neither one of those doctrines deals with the apparent contradictions that I listed above.

Recently, there has been some discussion on this site about a third doctrine on the relevance of the Mosaic law – and that doctrine does try to deal with the above contradictions. Basically, this doctrine states the following:

3. The Mosaic law is still in effect – but God is only calling Israelites to follow it.

In other words, the thought is that the Mosaic law is still in force – and it will be until the new heaven and the new earth are created (i.e., after the Millennium). However, the Mosaic law was only given to natural Israel – i.e., genetic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – so God never intended for Gentiles to follow it. As a result, this doctrine states that only genetic Israelites – plus Gentiles who explicitly become proselytes to Judaism – are called to follow the law.

In addition, this doctrine states that following the law does not have anything to do with salvation – i.e., even if a person is an Israelite, his salvation is not based on the Mosaic law. Instead, salvation is completely based on true faith – just as it is with Gentile believers.

Finally, this doctrine claims that if a person is an Israelite (or a proselyte) – and if he follows the law – then he will become a co-ruler with Jesus, during the Millennium.  In other words, Gentiles will not be co-rulers with Jesus – even if they have true faith. (Gentiles will be saved – but they will not live during the 1000 years.)

This is an intriguing doctrine, because it seems to resolve some apparent contradictions. Most notably, it resolves the apparent contradiction of Jesus stating that the law will be in effect until “heaven and earth pass away”, and Paul telling Gentiles that they are not under the law.

In addition, this doctrine resolves some apparent contradictions in Paul’s behavior. For example, Paul tells us that physical circumcision is nothing; and in fact he warns against it (Galatians 5:2-6) – but Paul has Timothy circumcised! (Acts 16:1-3). This doctrine provides an explanation for those two points, because Timothy was an Israelite – while the Galatian believers presumably were not. As a result, the Mosaic law would apply to Timothy, but not to the Galatians.

Also, Paul states that festivals, new moons and Sabbaths are merely “shadows of things to come” (Colossians 2:16-17) – but then Paul himself keeps the feast of Pentecost (Acts 18:20-21 (KJV) and Acts 20:16). This doctrine would explain those two points by the fact that Paul was an Israelite, while the Colossian believers presumably were not.

There are some other issues that arise with this doctrine, though. Here are some items that appear problematic with this doctrine:

– Paul tells us that Jews and Gentiles have become “one new man” (Ephesians 2:11-6), and that Gentile believers have been “grafted in” to natural Israel (symbolized as the olive tree – Romans 11:13-18). As a result, if natural Israelites are still called to follow the law, then I would expect that all Gentile believers would also be called to follow the law – given that all Gentile believers are (evidently) now considered a part of natural Israel.

– Even more to the point,  Abraham is called “the father of all who believe” (Romans 4:16), and Gentile Christians are called “Abraham’s seed, and heirs to the same promise of Abraham” (Galations 3:29). So, since Abraham will live during the millennium, that presumably means that all Gentile believers will also live during the millennium. This seems to contradict the idea that only people who follow the Mosaic law will live during the millennium. (After all, Abraham certainly was not called to follow the Mosaic law – the Mosaic law was not even given until hundreds of years after Abraham died.)

– Finally, Scripture indicates that during the Millennium, if the people of any nation do not keep the Feast of Tabernacles, then there will be no rain in that nation (Zechariah 14:16-18). This implies to me that during that time, everyone – both Jew and Gentile – will have to keep at least that part of the Mosaic law. This certainly seems to contradict the idea that the Mosaic law was never intended to be followed by Gentiles at all.

Again, this doctrine is certainly intriguing; but so far it does not seem to have “answered all of the questions”. I would certainly be interested to hear what all of you have to say about this doctrine!

340 Responses to “Is the Mosaic Law Relevant to ANY Christians?”

  1. on 12 Jul 2010 at 4:37 amJoseph

    Another for the Law/Feast side, is at the Last Supper Jesus directed his disciples’ attention toward the fulfillment of the Passover in the kingdom of God and he commanded his apostles to celebrate it until he returns:

    “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29).

    So, if only Jews are to obey the commandment to celebrate passover, does that mean gentiles will not partake of the passover in the Kingdom with Messiah?

    Another question, is observing Easter the same as observing passover as Yeshua commanded?

    How do you others interpret Matthew 26:29?

  2. on 12 Jul 2010 at 9:06 amrobert

    Brian
    Very good subject.
    The first thing i would like to point out is the Law is not a means for Salvation. Those that follow the Law will still be subject to the same Judgement as those who don’t and will receive the same salvation.
    The Law for Israel was a continuance of the call to separate to Abraham with both being fulfilled physically by an earthly kingdom which was never fulfilled to Abraham.This is whats required for the living in kingdom during the Sabbath rest of God.
    Now there was another promise to Abraham where all nations would be blessed and we know this blessing comes from the SEED which we know was Jesus and His testimony was first to Israel to Go back to following the Mosaic law as it was given by God ,Quit making additions to it like the Oral law and then about Salvation.
    After the redemption of all mankind by Jesus’ death as the sacrifice the message of Salvation was then preached to all ,Jew and Gentile which makes no distinction of nationality because it is offered to all nations equally with a lessor set of requirements but the message to the nation of Israel was still preached by the apostles to those who truly followed the law and I believe is achievable to anyone who want to possess the signs of a set apart people and Use the new sacrificial system Jesus setup.
    I also do not believe that the first resurrection will be anything but a physical resurrection to mortality because there seems to be a 2nd death for these but it shall not hold them.My belief is they will receive a body like the one Adam had which had the ability to live 1000 years. I also believe that Jesus will sit in God’s throne during this 1000 years as King of Kings while God enjoys his Sabbath and after the Sabbath he will give back the throne and then gather from the dead all that his sacrifice redeemed and those who lived during the Sabbath rest to stand before God for judgement while the earth is being restored and then all that receive salvation will descend with new Jerusalem to inhabit the earth.

  3. on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:10 pmBrian Keating

    Hi David,

    Well, this doctrine states that Gentile believers will not be resurrected until after the Millennium – so as a result, according to this doctrine, Gentiles will not celebrate Passover with Jesus in the kingdom. (Gentiles will be alive after the Millennium – but presumably passover will not be celebrated at all then; since the Mosaic law will not be in effect at that time.)

    Of course, I have some difficulties with the concept that Gentile believers will not be resurrected until after the Millennium; because Gentile believers are called “co-heirs” with Abraham. This certainly seems to indicate to me that Gentiles will inherit the same thing that Abraham will – and of course, what Abraham will inherit is land, on the earth, during the Millennium.

    Robert, as I understand it, your belief is that Gentiles will only be co-heirs with Abraham in a “figurative” sense, right? In other words, Gentiles will not inherit anything physical (as Abraham will) – instead, Gentiles will “inherit” the promise that “through Abraham, all nations will be blessed”. Is that correct?

    Brian

  4. on 12 Jul 2010 at 2:43 pmrobert

    “Robert, as I understand it, your belief is that Gentiles will only be co-heirs with Abraham in a “figurative” sense, right? In other words, Gentiles will not inherit anything physical (as Abraham will) – instead, Gentiles will “inherit” the promise that “through Abraham, all nations will be blessed”. Is that correct?”

    Brian
    Yes that is basicly what i see but as for defining gentile I see it refering anyone who doesnt answer the call to separate which includes those of ancient Israel and current Israel of which I also see the need for them to recognize that Jesus met the requirements of kingship.
    Also I see this promise being offered to anyone who is willing to accept the call to separate and take hold of this covenant but I still see only a few being chosen. As we all have understood just how hard of a task this is from reading the OT I still see a profit in it even if I am not chosen. I have never felt closer to My God then I do when I take part in this separate promise.
    Even if i am not chosen for this promise I know that Jesus redeemed me too and if I live as Jesus and the apostles instructed I will be apart of the other promise which I feel should be enough to be with God for eternity for any christian.

  5. on 12 Jul 2010 at 4:43 pmrobert

    “Robert, as I understand it, your belief is that Gentiles will only be co-heirs with Abraham in a “figurative” sense, right?”

    Brian
    Actually I see it in a Literal sense seeing that Abraham also inherits salvation through His SEED JESUS. Yes all will be co-heirs in this promise of salvation to all that follow the testimony of Jesus and the Apostles which is also found in the mosaic law along with many more laws.
    TO ME SALVATION IS AN INHERITANCE WORTH BEING A CO-HEIR IN .
    The key words in this promise is “ALL NATIONS” suggesting this includes Abraham and His decendents too. Was this not the promise Paul and the others Apostles taught the Gentiles.

  6. on 14 Jul 2010 at 9:10 amrobert

    1 Thessalonians 4
    13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent [4] them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort [5] one another with these words.

    Brian
    I am having a hard time connecting these 2, above and below.
    Why should those alive be caught up into the clouds when we know the Sabbath age will take place on the earth? Why does Paul feel he will be alive when this happens? Why is the dead caught up in the clouds if your reason to protect them from the wrath of God.
    The only reason i can see for this happening is so the earth can be made New which I dont see coming till after the 1000 years.
    Is there a reason why Jesus has to come to the earth so he can reign in Gods place while God rest on his Sabbath, Can he not reign the earth from heaven? Isnt the” dead in Christ ” all mankind that Jesus’ death redeemed? Have we misapplied this event totally?

    Revelation 20
    4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  7. on 14 Jul 2010 at 1:11 pmBrian Keating

    Hi Robert,

    Well, the “post-tribulation rapture” doctrine basically states the following, about what will happen at Jesus’ second coming:

    – First, believers will be resurrected;

    – Then, believers will meet Jesus in the atmosphere above the earth (i.e., “in the clouds”);

    – Finally, immediately after that, believers will descend to the earth, with Jesus.

    We know that Jesus will descend to the earth at his second coming, because Scripture explicitly tells us that:

    Acts 1:9-11

    9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

    In other words, when Jesus appears, he will descend back down to the earth, in the same way as he ascended from the earth.

    There is one other item to note about this issue. A few groups (primarily Christadelphians) state that believers will not meet Jesus in the atmosphere at all. Instead, when Jesus returns, believers will meet him on the earth – in Jerusalem.

    The reason they state that is that apparently, the definite article (the word “the”) does not appear in the Greek. So, the phrase “in the clouds” is more literally translated “in clouds”. As a result, if believers meet Jesus “in clouds”, that would appear to mean that we will meet him in groups – rather than in the atmosphere. (Compare this to the “great cloud of witnesses” in Hebrews 12:1.)

    To me, it doesn’t really matter that much whether we initially meet Jesus in the atmosphere or not – the bigger issue for me is that immediately after we meet Jesus, we will be on the earth with him.

    Brian

  8. on 14 Jul 2010 at 7:35 pmDoubting Thomas

    Brian
    At the council of Jerusalem In Acts 15:6-9 it says, “The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days that God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.’..”

    It appears Peter is saying the same thing as Paul. Peter said, “God made no distinction between us and them.” Paul said Jews and Gentiles have become “one new man” (Ephesians 2:11-6), and that Gentile believers have been “grafted in” to natural Israel (Romans 11:13-18). To me it seems Peter is reiterating what Paul would later write.

    To continue with the council of Jerusalem Acts 15:10-11 says, “Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers or we have been able to bear. But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

    Of course they go on to say the Gentiles don’t have to follow the Mosaic law but are given a modified version of Noah’s law to follow. It seems clear to me that they weren’t saying anything whatsoever about the Mosaic law no longer applying to Jewish Christians. They were clearly saying there was one law for the Gentiles and another law for the Jewish Christians.

    Of course which law you followed (Mosaic or Noahide) had nothing to do with salvation because Peter said, “We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

    I’m just a layman, but that’s how I read it anywaze…

  9. on 14 Jul 2010 at 8:29 pmXavier

    Doubting

    They were clearly saying there was one law for the Gentiles and another law for the Jewish Christians.

    You might be right, this whole topic falls in the realm of “progressive revelation” on the part of the Jewish Christians.

    Regardless, if there is a debate worth exploring further and that might be cause for consternation amongst Christians its this age old one. And not “how many God is” or what the Gospel message is or is not!

    Even so, Torah was clearly given to Jews only and not Gentiles!

  10. on 14 Jul 2010 at 10:21 pmrobert

    “In other words, when Jesus appears, he will descend back down to the earth, in the same way as he ascended from the earth.”

    Brian
    It say nowhere that he decends all the way to the earth and whether or not Its”The clouds” or not doesnt effect that they meet Jesus while he is Decending not all ready DECENDED. I cant find a single translation or greek or latin that supports that this is not up in the atmosphere within the clouds.
    You didnt provide me with a good reason to see a connection to the different verses i mentioned.

    Have we misapplied this event totally? YES it just dont make any sense unless its at the end of 1000 years

  11. on 15 Jul 2010 at 12:09 amBrian Keating

    Hi DT,

    It may very well be that the Mosaic law was only intended for Jews – not for Gentiles. So, let’s assume that that’s the case. Let’s also assume that the four items listed in Acts 15 are the only rules that Gentiles are called to follow.

    If the above items are true, then some serious ramifications occur:

    – The Mosaic law states that people must honor their fathers and mothers – but Acts 15 does not mention that at all. Does that mean that God thinks it is OK for Gentiles to not honor their parents?

    – The Mosaic law states that people must not take the Lord’s name in vain – but Acts 15 does not mention that at all. Does that mean that God thinks it is OK for Gentiles to take His name in vain?

    – The Mosaic law states that people must not commit murder – but Acts 15 does not mention that at all. Does that mean that God thinks it is OK for Gentiles to commit murder?

    – The Mosaic law states that people must not have any other gods besides Yahweh – but Acts 15 does not mention that at all. Does that mean that God thinks it is OK for Gentiles to worship other gods?

    And on and on…

    There is another explanation of Acts 15 – one that makes more sense to me. This other explanation deals with additional regulations that rabbis came up with (i.e., other than the regulations listed in the Torah).

    Basically, we know that Jews who were living at that time came up with a number of “extra” rules of behavior for people (basically, the beginnings of the modern Talmud). One of the purposes behind those extra rules was to allow Jews to determine if a person was worshipping pagan gods or not. In other words, if a Jew saw that a person was not eating foods that had been sacrificed to idols, and was not drinking blood, etc., then he could be reasonably confident that that person was not currently worshipping pagan deities.

    Supposedly, there were already dozens (or more) of those man-made regulations at that time – and as a result, it was extremely difficult for anyone to follow them. So, the theory is that what the apostles were saying in Acts 15 is this:

    “The only man-made regulations that you need to follow are these four. That will be sufficient to allow Jews to know that you are not worshipping pagan gods – and therefore, Jewish believers will be able to fellowship with you.”

    In other words, in Acts 15, the apostles were not talking about the Torah at all – instead, they were referring to rules made up by rabbis. Does this make sense?

    Brian

  12. on 15 Jul 2010 at 6:50 amDoubting Thomas

    Brian
    That does make sense. But answering your earlier questions/objections to what I said, I believe the Ten Commandments are not the same as the Mosaic law. I believe the Gentile Christians would have had three sets of laws to follow.

    The Ten Commandments. The modified Noah’s law mentioned in Acts 15:19-21 and the specific laws and commands laid out by Jesus…

  13. on 15 Jul 2010 at 8:25 amrobert

    Brian
    I agree also that Acts 15 is dealing with fellowship issues of jew and gentile and the regulations of the oral law of the jews being imposed on gentiles.
    But just fellowship not salvation.
    Thomas
    I also agre but treating them as laws might not apply, I think looking at them as morals to live by would apply better to the gentile within the blessing promise preached to the gentiles who are jew and greek who havent taken hold of the requirements to participate in the Sabbath rest. The calling to the Sabbath rest is to separate from other nations by following the laws and signs giving to Israel along with the testimony of Jesus.
    The 1000 years Sabbath rest is a reward and shouldnt be confused with salvation for all mankind which comes after the thousand years.
    Abraham answered his call to separate bringing about this separate promise to those that do the same

  14. on 15 Jul 2010 at 5:57 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “I think that looking at them as morals to live by would apply better to the Gentile within the blessing promise preached to the Gentiles.”

    You could be right. But, the way I see it, the reason most modern Christians don’t believe the 10 Commandments apply to us today is because of the 4th. commandment regarding the Sabbath. The three pillars of the Jewish faith were firstly the belief that the Lord their God was one and secondly honoring the Sabbath and thirdly obeying the 10 Commandments.

    If Peter and the Apostles and the other early Christians had rejected 2 out of the three pillars of the Jewish faith then the Jewish leaders certainly wouldn’t have been allowed them to preach in the temple and the early Christians wouldn’t have been accepted as a Jewish sect and welcomed in all the synagogues as fellow Jews for nearly 70 years after Pentecost.

    Just look at how many times Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath, but we are suppose to believe that Peter and the Apostles and all the early Christians not only violated the Sabbath, but outright rejected the Sabbath and said it is just another day to do one’s normal work in, and said the 10 Commandments no longer applied as commandments, and yet there is not a single mention of anybody objecting to this.

    Does anybody really think that the Scribes and the Pharisees and the leaders of the temple wouldn’t have been upset about this???

  15. on 15 Jul 2010 at 6:02 pmDoubting Thomas

    (Correction to above)
    If Peter and the Apostles and the other early Christians had rejected 2 out of the three pillars of the Jewish faith then the Jewish leaders wouldn’t have allowed them to preach in the temple etc…

    I should really check these messages over better before I hit Submit… 🙂

  16. on 15 Jul 2010 at 7:51 pmrobert

    Thomas
    You are correct that none of the apostles would ever preach against the Sabbath but they did preach that salvation wasnt based on it. They led by example on the Sabbath and left it up for us to decide if we wanted to take part in Gods 1000 year rest or just be saved by Grace to only take part in the New Earth and Heaven by just following the morals that were contained in Gods laws and testimony of Jesus.
    The Sabbath, festivals and laws were giving to Israel to set them apart from other nations with a promise to ALL(Israelite,Jew and Gentile) that take hold of it a chance to be included in the 1000 years Sabbath rest.
    Even with me doubting I will be chosen to the Sabbath rest I still try to always observe The Sabbath because it brings me closer to my GOD.

  17. on 15 Jul 2010 at 8:09 pmDoubting Thomas

    You said, “Even with me doubting I will be chosen to the Sabbath rest I still try to always observe The Sabbath because it brings me closer to God.”

    I also try to always observe the Sabbath because it brings me closer to God. I also don’t believe that this is a salvation issue just like you said. But I do believe that Satan is rejoicing in the fact that he has taken God’s holy day of rest and convinced billions of Christians that it isn’t holy at all, but just another day for us to do our normal work in.

    I guess that’s why he is called the great deceiver…

  18. on 15 Jul 2010 at 10:02 pmMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Brian,

    Matthew 5:16-19 is an extremely important text in this discussion. Yeshua is speaking and we must listen to him for he is the prophet liken to Moses (Deut. 18:18-19).

    In context Yeshua is discussing obedience in the life of his followers. Notice in verse 16 he tells his audience, “Let YOUR light so shine among men, so that others might see YOUR good works, and glorify the Father in heaven.” He also says in verse 19 that any of his listeners who breaks the least of the commandments of Moses and teaches others to do so will be least in the kingdom. It is in light of this context that he pronounces he did not come to destroy the law, but rather do the opposite – fulfill.

    If you study the meanings of “destroying the law” and “fulfilling the law” in 1st century Jewish context you will find that it was common for people to say that a Rabbi who misinterpreted the Torah was “destroying the Torah,” whereas a Rabbi who correctly interpreted the Torah was “fulfilling the Torah.” This fits perfectly with the remainder of Matthew 5 where Yeshua contrasts the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees with the his true teachings about the law of Moses (see, Mt. 5:20).

    Either we will believe Yeshua or not. His mission was not to come and teach a new God (trinity) or a different gospel. Nor was his mission to come and teach people that they are now under a new dispensation that doesn’t require them to keep the Sabbath, eat clean, wear tassels, not shave, commit adultery, take God’s name in vain, etc.

    There is so much to be said on this issue, but I am of the persuasion that the law of Moses is still in effect. One of the strongest reasons I believe this stems from a detailed exegesis of Matthew 5:16-19.

    I hope we can converse more on this thread.

    Matthew Janzen

  19. on 15 Jul 2010 at 11:22 pmXavier

    MJ

    Either we will believe Yeshua or not. His mission was not to come and teach a new God (trinity) or a different gospel. Nor was his mission to come and teach people that they are now under a new dispensation…

    What about “believing Yeshua” through his designated Apostles/disciples like Paul?

    Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body [is] of the Christ…For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace…You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. Col 2.16-17; Eph 2.14-15; Gal 4.10-11

  20. on 16 Jul 2010 at 4:33 amDavid

    Hmm… I’d have to say that my answer is no AND yes…

    From what I understand of scripture, it is that Gentile Believers need not keep Mosaic Law. There is a good portion of the NT where this issue is brought to light and discussed. It was not an issue that was taken lightly. When one reads the Bible they can feel the conflict the authors must have had over this issue alone.

    To support the idea that Gentile Believers need not keep all 613 commandments, I would take the interpretation given today by any knowledgeable Jew. Any “frum” Jew will tell you unequivocally that keeping Torah it is for Jews alone as, it only applies to the Jewish people. Reading the Bible, these are commandments given to them specifically. This conclusion is arrived to thru by the stipulations found in the Torah and Talmud; If you’re not a Jew, you’re not a Jew. To enter into the Mosaic Covenant, one must either convert, which includes circumsision, choosing a hebrew name, given a mikvah (Jewish Baptism) or (if born Jewish) have a Jewish mother. Otherwise, keeping Torah is not for you. If you want more information on this bit, I would suggest asking a Rabbi. They would be able to explain this bit in much better detail.

    Following this logic, unless the Gentile Believer converts officially and becomes Jewish they are not bound to observe all 613 commandments. From a Torah perspective, one is not bound to observe all 613 mitzvot unless they are under this covenant.

    Ok, that was the “no” part….

    Now… Jesus/Yeshua was Jewish. He kept all of the 613 of the commandments and then some. He did say to “do and observe” the commandments. He was speaking to Jews, and he was being “pro-Torah”. But what about the Gentiles? Jesus said that “all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two: Love the L-rd your G-d with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your might; and you shall love your neighbor as your self.”

    Scripture tells us that Jesus has high standards. To look at a woman in lust, in his opinion, was to commit adultery. The concept of looking at a woman in lust being the equivalent of commuting adultery is not found in Torah, written or oral. It is also not found in the NT or in Torah (or Talmud) that a non-Jew should be required to keep the 613 commandments (Torah)… however… like I said… Jesus has high standards. So…. What should we do as disciples?

    In the days of the 2nd Temple Era it was understood that a disciple was to strive to imitate their master in all ways. They would try to eat, sleep, think, dress, use the same mannerisms, and form the same habits as their master.

    Interesting…

    As Christians, we are “disciples” of Christ are we not?

    What this all means is that we “should” follow Torah, but according to JewishLaw (Torah/Talmud), we (as non-Jews/gentiles) are not “bound” to it.

    In a nutshell: It would be a “mitzvah” and a true heartfelt effort at “discipleship” for a Gentile Believer to attempt to keep Torah. It is NOT required, as all that is required is for us to love one another unconditionally, despite our differences. However, in the eyes of G-d and his Messiah – Attempting to keep Torah is one of the MOST (if not THE most) noblest of pursuits.

    Shalom!

  21. on 16 Jul 2010 at 6:48 amMatthew Janzen

    Xavier,

    I believe that the manner in which you are quoting Paul is similar to how many Trinitarians abuse Paul’s statements in Colossians 1, Philippians 2 and 1 Corinthians 8. I’ve been involved in dialogue with such people multiple times and they are always quick to tell me, “You mean you don’t believe Jesus is the Creator! What about Paul’s words in Colossians 1:15-17?” My response is usually a request to turn to the passage an actually do meaningful exegesis of the text considering the context of the new creation as well as dealing with the parallel passage in Ephesians 1.

    This is what I propose to you. You’ve quoted snippets of Paul from 3 different books and 3 different contexts and pieced them together smorgasbord style. This is not how the Bible should be handled. For now, I will just deal with one of the texts you cite for the sake of brevity (I have to get off to work very soon).

    Galatians 4:8-11

    Study shows that Paul’s audience in Galatia were the Gauls, a Celtic people, whom Gal-atia was named after. These people were stooped in paganism and even celebrated the ancient Celtic festival named Samhain (pronounced Soween) which is the root of the modern “halloween” celebration.

    It was to these people that Paul wrote to in Galatians 4:8 when he said, “But in the past when you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to things that by nature are not gods.” Notice Paul identifies their enslavement with a time when they DID NOT KNOW God. He then in verse 9 speaks of their conversion briefly and asks them why now, after their conversion, do they want to go BACK to the weak things they involved themselves in when they did not know God?

    It is in this vein that Paul now mentions observing days, months, seasons, and years. The observation of these times were done by the Galatians when they DID NOT KNOW Yahweh, so these times could hardly be speaking about the appointed times of Yahweh in Leviticus 23. They had to be speaking of observing some type of false paganistic calendar prior to their conversion.

    There may be a parallel here to Leviticus 19:26 and Deuteronomy 18:10, both of which speak of “observing times” (KJV) as part of false worship.

    There is much more to say on this one text, but I’ve been brief. Hopefully you and others can see that to use this text to speak against observing Yahweh’s holy Sabbath and Feasts is a gross misuse of the text to say the least.

    I deal with this text at length at this link:

    http://ministersnewcovenant.org/audio.html

    The sermon number is #216.

    Have a good day Xavier,
    Matthew

  22. on 16 Jul 2010 at 9:14 amrobert

    “This conclusion is arrived to thru by the stipulations found in the Torah and Talmud; If you’re not a Jew, you’re not a Jew. To enter into the Mosaic Covenant, one must either convert, which includes circumsision, choosing a hebrew name, given a mikvah (Jewish Baptism) or (if born Jewish) have a Jewish mother. Otherwise, keeping Torah is not for you.”

    David
    Being a Jew has nothing to do with the Old covenant unless they are a true Israelite. Jewish Law thats in the talmud is just that and should not be compared to the Torah that was given to the All Israelites.The talmud is a good reference to just how far removed the jews were after the return of Judah till the first 2 centuries AD with their adding and taking away to the wording of the Torah. Jesus fought against this and the Apostles had to deal with this.
    Being Just a jew wont get you into the Sabbath rest if you cant even recognized that Jesus met all the requirements for the Messiah. If you want to take part in the Sabbath of God then you need to take hold of the requirements written within the Torah and Follow the Morals Jesus set. This means throw out the talmud and return to the true Law of God.
    There always was a calling to anyone who wants to take hold of this promise but it takes dedication most are not will to give.

  23. on 16 Jul 2010 at 10:52 amXavier

    MJ

    This is what I propose to you. You’ve quoted snippets of Paul from 3 different books and 3 different contexts and pieced them together smorgasbord style. This is not how the Bible should be handled.

    Bro, so as not to flood the thread I quoted “snippets”. I would suggest to you once again to re-read Galatians, Colossians and Hebrews. Paul wrote whole letters fighting against your kind.

  24. on 16 Jul 2010 at 5:04 pmDavid

    Robert,

    The only problem that I have with that, is that the Oral Tradition (Talmud) is said to have been given to Moses along with the 10 commandments. For Millenia it has been considered by the Jewish people to be “Torah”. However, there is plenty written in the Talmud, that I myself (as a Messianic Believer) at this point am a little wary of (Particularly the passages that might be in reference to Yeshua). However, the Oral Tradition of his day would have been considered to also be Torah by his counterparts, Yeshua would have followed it.

    One must remember that the vast majority of the Talmud contains CIVIL laws and code. Israel, being a nation of priests derives both it’s spiritual, and civil laws from Torah. Yeshua wasn’t a brigand who had no respect for civil law. To assume he was against the oral Torah of his day would be to assume he had a disregard for civil law. The issue just isn’t that black/white. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Talmud has nothing to do with anything Yeshua was against.

    The issue Yeshua had with the religious authorities as depicted in the Bible had nothing to do with their adherence to the law. It had to do with a legalistic misinterpretation (and thus execution) of the law. It was a “heart problem”. The handful of religious authorities Yeshua got into it with, understood only the “letter” of the Torah, but they did not understand the inner spirit of Torah.

    The purpose of the law is to provide us with guidelines to keep us safe, to sanctify us, tell us G-d’s plan for creation, how we are to go about fulfilling it; all for the purpose of promoting life in abundance. The religious authorities of his day, failing to keep this in mind, created a self-defeating Torah in practice.

    I hope we are all catching that… This is important regardless of our personal opinions on Talmud.

    Today things have changed. Rabbinical interpretation is that that one may break a rule if it is to save a life. For example: If one is faint with hunger and their health or safety is determined to be at risk, it is permissible for one to break Sabbath to make a sandwich. Or to carry the sick to a doctor. Or to perform a life-saving medical procedure… etc. etc. Yeshua wasn’t against Oral Torah. He just happened to have a perfect understanding of it.

    Without allowing such leniency, the law would be self-defeating… Obviously the authorities he got into a tangle with, missed this point completely (along with other ones). This is what Yeshua did not like and hated: the nullification or making void of Torah by the very use of the Torah itself. This is abuse of the Torah. This is like taking G-d’s own sword out of G-d’s hands and using it to strike G-d! (Metaphorically speaking). It is also a mistake that is still made amongst our own Christian religious authorities – misinterpretations of scripture that cause those taught to sin, and those teaching it to become self-righteous.

    There is a great teaching by a Rabbi (Cordozo I think), I’ll have to find it… It discusses the “heart” of the law. He explains in detail how by Torah law, King David did not murder Uriah and steal Batshevah. But to arrive to this conclusion one must understand the Law. He explains how David took interest as he noticed this woman was spiritually clean (Mikvah). The woman (by law) was also conditionally divorced since her husband was at war. By law, all soldiers must write a conditional writ of divorce to their spouse. This is because of the possibility that they are KIA and never found. Without a body, the husband cannot be confirmed dead, and the wife is stuck as a married widow unable to re-marry ever. the Midrash says that Uriah was was executed for conspiring against the nation of Israel. He was planning a coup d’etat with Joab whom he called “My Lord Joab” (freudian slip?) in David’s presence. Planning a coup against the King and Country is TREASON. Uriah also in addition, disobeyed the King himself when ordered home. However, in spite of all of this, the King did not give Uriah a traitors death. He was allowed to secretly die as a hero, fighting on the front lines.

    King David followed the “letter” only, and even went out of his way with niceties. However, he was severly reprimanded by Nathan for this. How could this be? David was well within the borders of the law!

    David realized that although he was within the legal bounds of the Law, what he did was wrong in the spirit of the Law. As King it is his duty to strive to be closer to G-d and aim for a higher mark. He failed. In his failure he confessed “I have sinned”.

    This is why King David is known to have a heart after G-d. Jesus being the Messiah, understood this very well, even more so than King David. This is why Jesus had a serious bone to pick with the religious authority of his day. They of all people should have grasped this concept, being in positions of authority…

    Shalom! 🙂

  25. on 16 Jul 2010 at 8:07 pmrobert

    “This conclusion is arrived to thru by the stipulations found in the Torah and Talmud; If you’re not a Jew, you’re not a Jew. To enter into the Mosaic Covenant, one must either convert, which includes circumsision, choosing a hebrew name, given a mikvah (Jewish Baptism) or (if born Jewish) have a Jewish mother. Otherwise, keeping Torah is not for you.”

    David
    The oral law is a 2nd temple jewish law made up by jews to put an extra hedge around the Mosaic. Every time Jesus was accussed of breaking the law it was the Oral which he had no respect for. If the talmud was given to Moses why wasnt there a single mention to it within the OT. Talmud is just the traditions of men. Jesus thought it was against God warning to not add or take away ,the apostles fought against it thru out their writings.The jews would like you to think they are greater than God by writings laws over the top of Gods.
    You are thoroughly misguided on this.

  26. on 16 Jul 2010 at 10:13 pmDavid

    Robert,

    My understanding of any problems Yeshua had with the religious authority had nothing to do with extra biblical interpretations. This is because they never made any reference. Each “challenge” given, was directed at Yeshua’s interpretation of written Torah; the passages we can find in the first five books. If we read through the NT, we will find that each account of a religious authority challenging Yeshua, that the challenge was to his knowledge of written Torah.

    Talmud is not traditions. It is law. Volumes upon volumes of revised and codified law, concerning mostly the civil matters of the Jewish people along with explanations and discourse. It covers a wide range of topics on how theft is to be dealt with, how divorces are to be handled, inheritances, immigration, agriculture, court procedures, how law suits are to be handled, sentencing of criminals…

    The Talmud owes it’s existence to the command given by G-d in the book of Genesis to pursue justice and establish courts of justice and a just social order. To the jews the Talmud exists to enforce written Torah and enact any other useful laws or customs.

    Because of the diaspora and the displacement of the Jewish body, these laws have been codified so that they can be accessed by all.

    Putting a fence around Torah is not bad. Yeshua himself put a fence around Torah. Is this adding or taking away? Each passage that starts with him saying “You have heard it said…” is him passing an Oral tradition or interpretation. The rabbinical courts of his day would have had some form of orally transmitted tradition. The subject of “Talmud” is a broad and difficult one because the word itself is used to denote many different things. For a more comprehensive reading on what exactly the Talmud is visit: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=32&letter=T

    Again, Jesus was never accused of breaking oral law but written law. If he was against the oral law that the religious authority taught then how should we interpret:

    (Mat 23:1-3 NRSV) “Then Yahshua said to the crowds and to his disciples, {2} “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; {3} therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.”

    Why would Yeshua be telling the crowds to do “whatever” the religious authority teaches? You said it yourself that Yeshua was against their teaching, but here he is obviously “for” the teaching. He’s plainly against their misguided hypocrisy.

    I do not believe I’m misguided on this point. I will always revert to the example I see given by Yeshua, as he is the author and finisher of our Christian faith; as seen through a historical and biblical perspective.

    Now… on Talmud or no Talmud whatever. We may agree to disagree. But, may I ask: Did you arrive at your position because you were taught so, or read somewhere that it is so, or did you arrive at your position because you looked for yourself? I’ve been taught the same thing as you and have heard it for a very long time. It wasn’t until I began looking for myself that I arrived to this conclusion.

    Regardless… Yeshua taught to “do and observe”. You yourself said they taught oral law. By saying Yeshua was against what the Jews believe to be included in Torah still presents an anti-torah Messiah… admittedly this one is no-where near as bad as the pagan-influenced trinitarian version – but what you are proposing is still viewed as a “replacement” theology. We have to figure out how to have our cake and eat it too.

    Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

    There is nowhere, absolutely nowhere in the Bible, that explicitly says Talmud is wrong. There is nowhere in the Bible where Yeshua says not to follow the law either written or oral. There are places where he says to follow it, but not with the same heart as the teachers. The weight of NT scripture on this matter alone should be enough, even without the testimony of the Jewish people, or recreating the historical backdrop.

    The jews would like you to think they are greater than God by writings laws over the top of Gods.

    Woah… That’s quite a statement. Perhaps this statement alone explains why I’m being a little sharp. May I ask how is it that you have arrived to the conclusion that a “handful” of very misguided Jewish religious figures accounted for in the Bible, have become the representatives of an entire nation? Or am I taking what you said the wrong way?

    The oral Torah isn’t a bunch of laws written on top of G-d’s laws. It most certainly wasn’t the target of any of Yeshua’s attacks. The Jews do not find it to be holier than the written Torah. It does NOT take precedence over the written Torah, it was never thought to by the Jewish people and never will. From a legal perspective, biblical laws are always more important than rabbinic laws.

    Here’s an example:

    Talmud Shabbat 128b

    Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, “If an animal falls into an irrigation ditch [on a festival], one may bring and place pillows and blankets under it, so that it can rise up [from the ditch] on its own . . . [Problem: In doing so] does he not nullify the [blankets and pillows] from their Shabbat use!?! [Solution: Rav Yehuda] reasons that nullifying an object from its Shabbat use is a Rabbinic prohibition, while relieving an animal’s pain is a Torah requirement. The Torah requirement comes and defers the Rabbinic prohibition..

    You see? Your hypothesis is wrong because the Talmud teaches that rabbinical law is subject to biblical law.

    Jesus’s tiff with the religious authority of his day was in their self defeating interpretation of all law, weather rabbinical or biblical. Such as interpreting the law in a way that defeats it’s own purpose. (ie: when the Pharisee asked why it was that one of Jesus’ followers was picking grains on Shabbat.). As if his (the Pharisee) interpretation was “Oh no, one can’t break Shabbat for any reason! Not even for health reasons! You have to faint or die of hunger!”. I tell you, if one interprets the law this way, they are deceived – for they do not know the intention or heart of G-d.

    Today however, Jewish leadership isn’t anything like that handful of bad leaders that happened to grace the pages of our NT. Today’s talmudical interpretation would make this very same incident NOT in violation of the law – for it is permissible under special circumstances to break certain commandments, for the purpose of upholding the rest of them or saving a life.

  27. on 16 Jul 2010 at 10:18 pmXavier

    MJ

    Why did Jesus [Luke 6. 1-11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; Mar 7.19; Mat 15.11), and his apostles/disciples [Acts 10.15; 11.9; Rom 14.14] seem to do away with Torah?

    In the book of Acts twice God declares all foods clean, why do you insist on breaking with God’s commandments?

    So you may eat any meat that is sold in the marketplace without raising questions of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

    If someone who isn’t a believer asks you home for dinner, accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you without raising questions of conscience. (But suppose someone tells you, “This meat was offered to an idol.” Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.) For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it? 1Cor 10.25-30

  28. on 16 Jul 2010 at 10:24 pmrobert

    This articles prety much sums up the oral law as JUST JEWISH Law with no connection to Moses whatsoever. I have no wish to be a Jew because the promise of the covenant was made with Israel. A jew is just a nationality after God separated them from the kingdom of Israel and the Oral law is only for a jew of 2nd temple Judaism

    Adding To Torah: The Oral Law Dilemma
    Ellen Kavanaugh
    “The Pirkei Avot teaches that the oral tradition/oral laws were passed down from Moshe to Joshua, etc. And since they weren’t codified into the Mishnah until about 200 CE, it’s pretty difficult to ascertain when the oral tradition first began. (This writer’s own best guess is that the oral tradition began sometime during the Babylonian captivity).

    In Scripture one reads of the various kings … “so-in-so did evil in the sight of the L-rd and the people turned to idols….” — then there would be a good king and all would be restored again. Who kept the oral traditions alive to pass on during these times when even written Torah had been forsaken?

    If Joshua really received the oral law from Moshe, why doesn’t Scripture tell us so? Why does Joshua only teach the people what was written in the Torah and not the oral part? Read Joshua 8:30-34 below:

    “Then Joshua built an altar unto the LORD, the God of Israel, in mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any iron; and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace-offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger as the home-born; half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them in front of mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law.”
    Also in Joshua 23:6, when Joshua is old and near his death, he cautioned the people:

    “Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left.”
    Joshua makes no mention of the oral laws he supposedly received, nor is any attempt shown on his part to pass it along to others who would follow.

    What Does Torah Say About Adding To Its Contents?

    “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2
    “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32
    Not only does Scripture not mention any oral law being given alongside the written Torah, it goes further to warn NOT to add to written Torah.

    What Do The Prophets Say About Oral Law (Traditions)?

    For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Isaiah 29:10-15
    This sad passage indicates a time when Israel will be blind — Scripture will be a book of confusion, yet the laws of men (oral tradition) will be understood without difficulty. This speaks of a people who appear pious, yet lack true understanding of G-d’s Word — they are blind. Modern Judaism appears godly, yet is unable to acknowledge Yeshua’s messiahship and relies instead on the teachings from the Talmud, believing these teachings to be Torah.

    What Does Yeshua Say About Oral Law (Traditions)?

    “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matthew 15:3
    “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9

    “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:13

    What Do The Apostles Say About Oral Law (Traditions)?

    “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” 1 Tim 1:4-8
    “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” Titus 3:9-11

    Many Messianics are giving too much weight to oral law — it simply isn’t equal to Scripture! How can it be in our efforts to teach Yeshua to those in traditional Judaism, that Messianics are instead picking up their belief in Talmud? This isn’t right. 1 Peter 4:17 cautions us:

    “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”
    Talmud has its place: it shows how the rabbis originally interpreted some scripture, and it can help us understand idioms and traditions of the past. But Scripture simply doesn’t support it was given to Joshua from Moshe or that oral law is also inspired. To the contrary, we are warned to be on guard against it.”

  29. on 16 Jul 2010 at 11:01 pmrobert

    David
    the talmud is a learning tool just as the early christian writings are but neither are any way inspired. Both just help us understand the mindset of the time when the NT was wrote.
    Even some of the greek and jewish pilosophers are very helpful in understanding the mindset.
    I have completely read the talmud and have read the bible in several translations even greek and latin to come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Apostles biggest challenge was show the oral law was not Gods law which has confused millions of christians that some of the apostles were against the torah. These christians have never read the talmud to see that these were the traditions Jesus fought against.
    BTW the refernce to sitting in Mose’s seat had nothing to do with oral law.
    Your right that we must agree to disagree on this subject because you bring with you qualities i admire and hope to have some great discussions with your involvement and dont want this issue to cause problems.

  30. on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:15 amDavid

    Robert,

    I completely agree with you that would agree that the Talmud is not divinely inspired – not in the sense that the written Torah is. It most certainly is man’s/our attempt at a prescribed interpretation. That alone is a noteworthy and divine endeavor, but it does not make the writings divinely inspired; only thru proxy.

    The reference to those sitting in Moshe’s seat… the text would imply that if they taught oral tradition it was to be followed. But then again, obviously the oral tradition they were teaching at that time missed the mark….

    I think you are correct in saying he did set himself up against oral tradition because the misinterpretations of the religious authorities would be considered the oral tradition of their day… What I’m trying to say is that Yeshua had problems with some of the interpretations given by oral/tradition and Rabbinical authority, but not all interpretation as a whole. That would just be very “non-Jewish” of him.

    I believe and think we can both agree though that Yeshua’s word trumps anything given by Rabbinical authority on the grounds that he is the supreme Rabbi and our High Preist. The Jewish sages themselves believed that that Messiah will have a perfect interpretation of the law that completely blows all other interpretations away. I believe his (Messiah’s) oral tradition (which we see in the NT… at least it was “oral” 2000 years ago before it was written..) is more correct than that of his contemporaries; and what we see argued amongst them is a version of oral law. (Those arguing Rabbis! Something they always do!) This is why we should all take Yeshua’s word over any other interpretation, Talmudical or otherwise. However, on an up-note the Jewish people have made leaps and bounds in their interpretation and oral tradition since those days; as we see from studying the Talmud we have codified today.

    We can’t ignore that oral law is quite central to Jewish faith. However, we must make no mistake that the interpretations of the Moshaich supersede that of Rabbinic Authority; This has been said by the Sages themselves. This is how we can reconcile, at least in our own minds as Messianic Believers, the rift between Rabbinical authority and the teachings of Messiah.

    If the Talmud has much discourse and arguments by the Rabbis, then the issue of Yeshua as Moshiach is simply an unfinished argument that never took place before the Talmud was put collected and put into writing.

    We all know that Rabbinical interpretation on the matters of Yeshua are suspect. I blame that outcome on what happened in Nicea, and the subsequent disastrous events. It was natural for the Sages to defend the Jewish faith from the foreign and twisted replacement trinitarian god-man doctrine. They were merely protecting the Jewish existence from obliteration and assimilation. I believe this to be something that will be reconciled in the future after all that happens, comes to pass.

    On this topic of Talmud and Oral Tradition, perhaps you and I are both correct in some fashion. After all, I’ve always found that the correct answer for two seemingly opposite views lies in between. I certainly do not “flat out” disagree with you. There are no worries… it’s open minded discourse like this that enables all of us to learn. Trust me, I’m not sitting here banging my head on my keyboard or cursing under my breath: I think that’s silly. I didn’t think we were arguing, only sharing… although there was one comment about the Jews that did rub me the wrong way, but more or less because I was a bit concerned about where you were coming from. The Jewish people are a very, very, very misunderstood people. Their faith misunderstood even more. These are G-d’s people, they are Messiah’s people, and thus they are my people.

    Wow… Why is it that when I intend to write a one or two paragraph comment or response that they ALWAYS end up being THIS long? 😀

    I have completely read the talmud and have read the bible in several translations even greek and latin to come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Apostles biggest challenge was show the oral law was not Gods law which has confused millions of christians that some of the apostles were against the torah

    I’ll take your word for it! You’ve certainly done a lot of reading. 🙂 Tackling the Talmud alone like reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica! It’s been 3 years since I’ve started studying Tractate Ketubos alone – and I’m not near finished. Let me tell you, it’s heavy reading material. Yikes!

    I have to agree that there are millions of Christians that are very confused when reading the epistles. Throw in a bad doctrine or two and the epistles will read in a way that appears to be extremely anti-Torah. It is very sad that so many Christians today accept this. It’s our own incorrect “Christian oral tradition” if you will. It’s surely been a blight on the world and to the Jewish people. Thank G-d we are starting to see thru that deception.

    Kol Tov!

  31. on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:23 amXavier

    MJ

    You gona dialogue with me bro or am I just wasting thread space here?

  32. on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:48 amDavid

    I have to apologize if I seem argumentative in any of my posts. I’m not trying to be… I’m as one of the Rabbis in the Talmud. Constantly going back and forth trying to find the “solution”. It’s as the example I gave above where Rav Yehuda had one interpretation, then another Rabbi posed the problem with that interpretation, and then finally a solution was given where both statements could be correct. You find this a lot with Jewish studies. That would explain the “method to my madness” so to speak. I don’t want to be “right”, I just want to seek a some sort of solution or agreement were everyone (myself included) walks away with something “new”. 🙂 Keep this in mind and I end up to be much easier to deal with. lol.

  33. on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:59 amrobert

    David
    Your manners represent christianity very well. I have no problem with what you believe and i like the way you approach discussions. I want to be challenged because it makes me dig deeper to where i either prove my belief or come to a better understanding of it.
    i hope you hang around for a long time.

  34. on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:59 amDavid

    “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:13

    Score! I’m just playing!… but it is an interesting note. This is what I meant in my two posts above (#24 & #26)… 🙂

  35. on 17 Jul 2010 at 1:04 amDavid

    Robert,

    Thank you for the kind words. It means much to me. I am honored that you receive me well.

    I truly believe this kind of “digging” is important. That no matter how far we dig, we will always find something – but also that we must seek diligently to ever know the heart of G-d. So much wrong has been taught because G-d’s intentions and heart were misunderstood. I am very thankful that there are honest seekers of ruth such as yourself and other members of this forum.

  36. on 17 Jul 2010 at 2:27 amDavid

    I just finally got thru the entire original article. The inquisitive nature of Brian’s post is astonishing and there are many great points brought up. He reminds me of the arguing Rabbis trying to find a unified solution. A way to make the pieces “fit”.

    Please excuse my french, but this this blog/forum is what us young people call: bad*ss. 🙂

  37. on 17 Jul 2010 at 8:18 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    Please forgive me for not being able to spend more time in dialogue with you. I’m happy to do so, but I usually only find a little time in the day to spend on discussion forums. As long as you are willing to discuss though, I will be too.

    You asked me why did Yeshua and his apostles seem to do away with the Torah. I believe it is best to begin with looking at the teachings of Yeshua. This is because he is the Son of Yahweh, and the prophet liken to Moses that Deuteronomy 18 speaks of. If we do not listen and take heed to Yeshua, bluntly put, we are doomed.

    Yeshua was not just the Son of God, he was the sinless Son of God. Seeing that (1)sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4) and (2) Yeshua was sinless, this means (3) that Yeshua never once transgressed any of the laws of God.

    Not only would Yeshua not transgress the laws by breaking them, he also would not transgress the laws by teaching others that it was permissible to disobey Yahweh, i.e. break God’s law. He taught this most plainly in Matthew 5:16-19 where he instructs his audience to perform the good works of the Torah to let their light shine. He tells them that his mission was not to come and destroy the Torah, but to fulfill it and that this means that anyone who breaks the least of the commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom. Notice that the teaching and keeping of even the least commandments has Kingdom implications.

    So, Yeshua did not teach against the Torah at all. If we come across a passage that on the surface appears to teach what you propose, it probably sounds thus to most people because of the preconceived notion taught by most in Christianity that anything to do with “the law” is bad, old, out dated, etc. It doesn’t “sound that way” to most because they have diligently exegeted the passage.

    Let’s look at a few of the passages you’ve cited.

    LUKE 6:1-11
    Here we have two cases of Yeshua’s actions on the Sabbath. Remember that back in Luke 4:16 we learn that Yeshua’s custom was to go to synagogue on Sabbath. In Luke 2:41-43 we learn that during Yeshua’s childhood he kept the feast days as well. His parents were avid keepers of Torah, even the ceremonial aspects (Luke 2:21-24, 39).

    In the grainfield incident in Luke what we have is an exceptional case. Human need always takes precedent over Sabbath regulation. For example, if one of my children were to fall into my well on the Sabbath, I would not wait until after the Sabbath to remove them from the well thinking I am some kind of pious person in doing so. If I had a flat tire on the way to the synagogue on Sabbath I wouldn’t just sit there and not change the tire untill Sabbath was past.

    This is the point Yeshua is making to the Pharisees. They ask him why his disciples are doing what is not lawful on Sabbath, but he responds by telling them that if they really understood the Torah (Mt. 12:7; Micah 6:8) they would know that the disciples were guiltless. Yeshua used the example of David eating the sacred bread in the temple which would was not normally allowed to be eaten, but for David an exception was made which was lawful, because of the surrounding circumstances (see 1 Sam. 21:1-6).

    In Matthew’s parallel account (Mt. 12:1-8) Yeshua also gives the example of the priests in the temple who violate the Sabbath but are blameless. His point is that the priests have to continue working on the Sabbath and really even more so because the sacrifices/offerings are more numerous on Sabbath than a regular working day (Num. 28:1-10). Why were they blameless? They were doing the work of Yahweh for the good of the people of Yahweh. This was Yeshua’s entire point, and his point was valid at the time he made it as well as thousands of years before he made it.

    The next instance in Luke 6 is similar to the grainfield incident yet different to some degree. The scribes and Pharisees were watching Yeshua closely in order to see if he would do what on the Sabbath? Heal a man with a paralyzed hand. Where does the Torah forbid that? It does not, but in the minds of the Pharisees who upheld not only the written Torah, but also the traditions of the elders (Mt. 15:1-2; Mk. 7:1-5). Yeshua violated these traditions (see Luke 11:37-41) because they were exactly that – traditions of men which had nothing to do with the proper understanding and interpretation of the Torah.

    When Yeshua healed the man’s hand in Luke he wasn’t violating Torah, he was actually keeping Torah and bringing a glimpse of the Kingdom of God to this man. Yeshua was teaching us that according to Gods written Torah, it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

    So as not to make this post to awful long, I will deal with Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:19 in another post.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  38. on 17 Jul 2010 at 8:40 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    I’ve got more time that usual this morning, so I figured I would go ahead and comment on Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:19. They are parallel so I would like to use Mark as a base seeing it is the one most people attempt use to abolish the Torah’s teaching on diet.

    The context of the passage deals with the disciples of Yeshua eating bread without first washing their hands – ritually. We are not here talking about when our Mother’s taught us as children to wash up before dinner. What this is is a tradition that had been elevated to the status of a commandment in the eyes of some Pharisees. There was even one particular Jewish Rabbi of old that chose to use water given to him in prison to perform the ritual washing rather than drink it to quench thirst and sustain his life (see John Gill’s commentary on Mt. 15:2).

    The Pharisees had asked Yeshua why his disciples did not live according to the tradition of the elders? Yeshua responded by reprimanding them for exalting traditions of men to commandment status, and violating the Torah by their own traditions. He goes on to tell them (Mk. 7:7-13) that there little sneaky way of getting around honoring their parents was a violation of the 5th commandment. The Pharisees had come up with the idea of dedicating all of their belongins to the temple so that they would not have to honor their parents by taking care of them in their elderly age. Yeshua rebukes them pointedly by saying that they revoke God’s commandment by their tradition that they had handed down.

    In this context Yeshua then makes his remarks in Mk. 7:14-23. He tells the crowds that things coming from outside of a person do not defile the person. His point in context is that not keeping the tradition of the elders – the ritual/traditional washing – does not cause a person to be defiled when they eat food. He is speaking to Jews in a completely Jewish context. All his listeners would understand him to be talking about eating the food the Torah taught was permissible with ritually unwashed hands. This did not defile a person.

    Yeshua goes on to say that the food doesn’t go to his heart but rather to his stomach and is eliminated – purging all meats (KJV). His point is that the body takes in the nutrition needed from the food, but the digestive system purges out the toxins when a person relieves their self.

    Alot of newer Bible versions, although great translations for the most part, completely miss Mark 7:19 by saying something to the effect of – “As a result, He made all foods clean.” If this verse is teaching that Yeshua was okaying crab legs, catfish, and pork then he would have been a sinner and unable to be the perfect lamb to die for our sins. Also, if Yeshua was teaching his disciples that every animal was clean for food why many years later had Peter not gotten the message? In Acts 10:14 Peter remarks to Yeshua that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. Peter did not understand Yeshua’s teaching in Mark 7:19 to be permitting the eating of what the Torah forbid.

    A good study on the proper translation and interpretation of Mark 7:19 can be found here:

    http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  39. on 17 Jul 2010 at 9:15 amXavier

    MJ

    Thank you for your time.

    I think our disagreement lies in the misunderstanding between the Old Mosaic Covenant which Jesus lived and died under, and the New Covenant of which prophets like Jeremiah speak about. Even though Jesus adhered to Mosaic Law, his coming also inaugurated the New Covenant YHWH God would bring into fulfillment with his death.

    And yes, we must begin with the teachings of “Yeshua” but do not stop with the Gospels. His teaching extends to his apostles/disciples as I mentioned. This is something people of your ilk ignore or twist time and time again. Paul, former Pharisaic Jew no less, was clearly against the group known as the Judaizers.

    Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

    If others think they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

    But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. Phil 3

    Why is it a “loss” now if Paul is said to have been “faultless based on the righteousness of the law”?

  40. on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:52 amT. J. Martin

    Xavier,I don’t mean to but in on yours and Matthew’s conversation but I believe this man is right. I don’t see how you can think that Paul or Yeshua is teaching contrary to the (Mosaic) law here in any of the passages you have cited. One of the foundational principles that one must have to understand any New Testament scripture, is that they (Messiah,decipals,etc.)did not have a New Testament. They are living what you are reading. Secondly if our Messiah is sinless then he can’t possibly teach contrary to the law, and if Paul is a deciple of Yeshua he doesn’t teach that way either. One more thing if Paul seems like he teaches contrary to our Messiah or the law, which I don’t believe he does,but if so you are misreading the text or we don’t need to adhere to his teachings according to Isaiah 8:20. The bible is written to be understood as a whole, we can’t pit passages against each other. If you will examine Mt 5:17-19 like this fellow has explained I don’t think you the scriptures you use will make sense to do away with the law. I would like for you to deal with this passage in depth. Also keep in mind Paul was a law keeper (Acts 21:24) and he still kept the law long after what you refer to as the New Covenant comes into play. Such as fiestdays,moral,civil, and ceremonial laws. If paul didn’t agree with the law he would sound like a hypocrite to me.
    Thanks for your time.

    T. J.

  41. on 17 Jul 2010 at 5:30 pmDavid

    Brian,

    Perhaps I can offer a probable solution to the passage in Zechariah.

    – Finally, Scripture indicates that during the Millennium, if the people of any nation do not keep the Feast of Tabernacles, then there will be no rain in that nation (Zechariah 14:16-18).

    These passages are understood to refer to the world-to-come/messianic age. During this time it is understood by Jewish scholars that Messiah will be on the throne of Jerusalem; As the ruler of all of the Earth. His position is seen as something like (But much more exalted than): Prime Minister of Earth; leader of a new one world government, subservient to G-d.

    Following this logic, all rulers of the nations of Earth would submit to his authority as head of this world alliance, with Jerusalem as it’s capital. Messiah, following Torah and mitzvot, could order a decree that “emissaries” of the nations make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

    An emissary can act as agent of a people, or as agent of a single person. This is halachic law of agency. Thus the people, by Jewish law would be in attendance via proxy of their agent.

    It is also said by the rabbis, that at this time, the entire world will look to Messiah and Israel for spiritual leadership.

    If we keep the time-line this passage refers to in mind, we can understand it to be talking about what will and must happen at that time; after Messiah is crowned and takes the throne.

    Any nations at this time that do not submit will have no ‘rain’. To the Hebrews, water is a big thing. The Hebrew word for “blessing” which is “Barachah”… the root word of this means “pool” or “well”. To people that live in the hot climate of the Middle east, to have no water, is to have no life. To have no water is to be disconnected from the source. When they bless G-d: “Baruch atah Adonai, Eluhenu Melech HaOlam….” it can be understood to mean, “You are the endless source, Sovereign of all Existence”…

    This must mean that those who do not submit to the King of Israel, are not submitting to the Torah as well. Thus they may take no part in this messianic Kingdom… they will be shut outside the gates.

    Additionally, this passage can only be interpreted to imply observance of the holy day of Sukkot. I cannot gather any meaning of the text to mean “all of the written Torah”…

    On a side note…it is understood, that whatever the King Moshiach says… is oral “Torah” by extension.

    Thus… the Torah to be followed is the Torah applicable to the people. The entirety of the 613 and any “correct” oral tradition for the Jews. For the Gentiles, the Noachide laws in Torah which are applicable to all peoples, and especially any verbal (then)/written (today) instructions transmitted to us by our King Moshiach, Yeshua.

    This appears to be a viable solution to the problem presented. Ideas? 🙂

    Paul tells us that Jews and Gentiles have become “one new man” (Ephesians 2:11-6), and that Gentile believers have been “grafted in” to natural Israel (symbolized as the olive tree – Romans 11:13-18). As a result, if natural Israelites are still called to follow the law, then I would expect that all Gentile believers would also be called to follow the law – given that all Gentile believers are (evidently) now considered a part of natural Israe

    Solution:

    True gentile believers now worship the one true G-d of Israel… He is the root which nourishes the olive tree. The original branches are natural Israel, the new branches Gentile Believers.

    Notice the “wild” olive branch. It still remains a “wild” olive branch. The tree becomes a new tree consisting of two distinct parts. Natural olive, & wild olive. However, it is one unified tree collecting it’s nourishment from the same source.

    Unfortunately due to the “schizm” between Jew / Christianity this symbiosis isn’t at all recognized. Those of us that share our unitarian beliefs are the minority. However, I believe what is done by G-d is done. The sky is blue weather one believes it or not. I am a living being, regardless if I were to believe that I were a piece of toast.

    To sum up: We are one new body. A hybrid with distinct parts… fused into one, tapped into the same source.

    One new man out of two: When an organ or limb is transplanted, there is a natural resistance of the body to the new limb. Eventually peace is made and they become whole. I do not think peace would be synonymous in this case with “assimilation” but rather “symbiosis”.

    I think this is a good solution as well… any ideas? 🙂

    ……………..

    I also subscribe to the The Mosaic law is still in effect – but that it is for Jews/Natural Israel. (Today to be Jewish by definition is one who is by Torah Law entered into the Mosaic Covenant). This is the heritage passed down generation after generation since the time of Mount Sinai until today after the Diaspora or Scattering/Exile of the Jews all over the world.

    The only thing I do not understand is the issue of the “millennial reign” and Gentiles…. Could you please give more information on this piece of the puzzle? I do not understand how the Gentiles might be excluded by this doctrine as it was promised to Avraham. How did they come to the conclusion that Gentiles were not to take part of this?

  42. on 17 Jul 2010 at 6:44 pmrobert

    “The only thing I do not understand is the issue of the “millennial reign” and Gentiles…. Could you please give more information on this piece of the puzzle? I do not understand how the Gentiles might be excluded by this doctrine as it was promised to Avraham. How did they come to the conclusion that Gentiles were not to take part of this?”

    David
    Lets start with Abraham
    God called Abram to separate from all others and for doing so God promised all the land shown for his possession which He never received in his life time. This is where Israel truly started.
    Sarah his wife being within the Abrahams family received this calling also. From these 2 the bloodline of Jesus would not stray from hebrew decent and this is why Hagar could not provide the son to the promise. This is the reason Isaac’s wife had to come from Hebrew decent, This is why Jacob was chosen over Esau when Esau chose wife from outside Hebrew decent, This is why Judah’s son’s could not produce an heir because their mother wasnt of hebrew decent, This is why Tamar daughter or grandaughter of Shem did what she did, This is why David did what he did with Batsheba because she was of the same bloodline as David, And this is why Nathan produced the bloodline to Jesus.
    Genesis 3:15 gives us the cause to insure a certain bloodline to Jesus and the Old covenant was strongly formed to do just that. All this brought about the fulfillment of another promise that was made to Abraham in which thru his SEED ALL nations would be blessed which the New coventant is all about.
    the one thing that most dont understand is when the Mosaic covenant was made it was for a future possession if they accomplished the purpose it was established for and when this purpose was fulfilled by Jesus this covenant could not end to all that took hold of it.This promise had a reward for those who took hold of it and can not fade away till there is no one to take hold of it. This reward was a 1000 years possession of the land promised to Abraham and is offered to all(Jew and gentile).
    This promise and reward should not be confused with the other promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed which is brought about by Grace because God accepted Jesus’ sacrafice as the redemption of all nations. Without this promise the other nations would not take part in judgement with a multitude gaining entrance to the New heaven and earth. the land promise was never offered to other nations unless they chose to follow the same commandments as those that made it possible for Genesis 3:15 to be fulfilled.

    Genesis 3
    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

  43. on 17 Jul 2010 at 7:38 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Thanks for putting some light on that makes perfect sense. 🙂

    Hmm… I have no opinion or alternative interpretation to offer the group at this time; but at least I know exactly what we’re talking about and where to begin studying.

    The rest of the comments on this post (how/when the return and in the sky or not) seem to be moving into the realms of eschatology (not my strongest suit) so I don’t have anything to say, other than my interpretations of those texts are also allegorical. (ie; Jesus can’t literally be physically sat at the right-hand of G-d because scripture teaches us that G-d is incorporeal and timeless…thus it’s probably less likely that he’s going to arrive in some UFO.) However… the good thing is we don’t have to interpret them in order to get our faith or doctrine right… Nobody really knows what happened to Elijah and Enoch, but no-one is hung up on the issue either.

  44. on 17 Jul 2010 at 9:34 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Just to clarify on other posts above regarding Oral Tradition. I am perfectly fine with civil laws. The other one’s as far as how far I should walk without a head covering, or that I should wash my hands etc etc etc… these are man made laws.

    Mat: 15:2-3 is clear on this as you would agree… so I believe that you are correct in the interpretation as this speaks as “tradition” vs. “commandment”. I validate you in this point as this additional Oral Law is an un-doable burden.

    This is why discussing Oral Law is difficult. Because one can be referring to civil law, one can be taking about midrash, Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud and one can be talking about ridiculous tradition. The validity I am talking about has nothing to do with the additional Takanot, these are all worthless, and in many cases do nullify the Commandments of G-d; This is probably why my position on Oral Torah doesn’t make sense.

    If a Rabbi tells me to jump off a cliff, by that tradition I must follow or be under that law. That is ridiculous. I hope this clears some stuff up.

  45. on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:27 pmrobert

    David
    I am not against the reason the oral law was created just the forced obidience to it. there are some very moral things contained in it that can train a person to follow the Torah.
    Being an obidient jew is not a bad thing unless you use it for righteousness and force others to follow it claiming it was God given. There was 3 things being dealt with in the post resurrection NT writings .The first was Jews claiming you had to be a Jew pertaining to the oral law to receive salvation.The second was to be a Israelite christian which Hebrews deals with.
    The third was to be a gentile christian which Paul deals with in many letters. this was a very important message to let the gentiles know that thru Jesus sacrafice they were grafted by Grace into one of the promises to Abraham, The one of the blessing by which salvation is given.
    So you know where i come from I believe that i am of the exiled of the northern kingdom ,but this doesnt give me a free ticket to the Sabbath rest of God. I have struggled over obidience and feel there is a very good chance I carry the mark of other nations before I realized my calling as an Israelite but will continue to take hold of that covenant along with the New covenant because i find closeness to God when i follow the Ways HE set forth for His elect.
    I will be disappointed if i dont get to be a part of the elect but salvation is the greater of the 2 because God will personally be with us.

  46. on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:41 pmDavid

    Robert,

    I completely agree. The forced obedience and the exhalation of oral tradition it above the written to a self-defeating nature is terrible. It’s the spirit of religion.

    You might appreciate this video as its right on the money:
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/52_gordon.html

  47. on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:45 pmDavid

    … what I mean is Nehemiah (the guy in the video) hit’s the Oral Tradition thing on the head. He picks it apart completely.

  48. on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:57 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Also… I did make a mistake in one of the above posts about the challenges presented to Yeshua. With washing the hands. That is not part of the written Torah.

  49. on 17 Jul 2010 at 11:18 pmrobert

    “what I mean is Nehemiah (the guy in the video) hit’s the Oral Tradition thing on the head. He picks it apart completely. ”

    David
    I am about 30 min into and if he continues the way i have heard so far I believe this might be a very powerful video to help people understand just what Jesus was fighting against.
    going to finish watching it in the morning.
    Thank you for sharing this.

  50. on 17 Jul 2010 at 11:43 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Oh yeah… the entire thing. 🙂 It’s a great video. I’m glad you appreciate it!

  51. on 18 Jul 2010 at 12:14 amDavid

    Wait till you hear his acedemic argument about the Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew… that the original was in Hebrew and not Greek. Interesting stuff. 🙂

  52. on 18 Jul 2010 at 2:32 amDavid

    So you know where i come from I believe that i am of the exiled of the northern kingdom ,but this doesnt give me a free ticket to the Sabbath rest of God. I have struggled over obidience and feel there is a very good chance I carry the mark of other nations before I realized my calling as an Israelite but will continue to take hold of that covenant along with the New covenant because i find closeness to God when i follow the Ways HE set forth for His elect.

    You could be a Karaite Jew. (Torah only) 🙂

    Karaite Judaism follows patrilineal descent, meaning a Jew is someone whose father is Jewish, or who has undergone a formal conversion, since all Jewish descent in the Tanakh is traced patrilineally.
    However, anyone who formally accepts the God of Israel as their own God, the people of Israel as their own people, and is circumcised (males only), is a fully established member of the people of Israel (Jew); most Karaites believe this should be done in the form of a vow, see Exodus 12:43–49, Ruth 1:16, Esther 8:17, and Isaiah 56:6–7; also Ezekiel the prophet states that strangers who have joined themselves to the Children of Israel will be given land inheritance among the Tribes of Israel during the final redemption.[10]

    This is not in anyway governed by Rabbinical Authority (Jewish Orthodoxy Today), but by Torah authority.

    Thus by doing away with “man’s law” entrance into this Covenant is much easier… Following that logic… you might just have your ticket! 🙂 613 mitzvot is not at all hard to follow. Most of us here are following many of them already without knowing it.

  53. on 18 Jul 2010 at 2:33 amDavid

    …And by following a human Yeshua… no “man” can say you’re not Jewish.

  54. on 18 Jul 2010 at 2:34 amBrian Keating

    Hi Everyone,

    Thank you for all of your comments. I see that the commentary on this post has really “taken off” recently… That’s good – because we are all trying to learn the truth, right?

    I only have time for a short comment now. Matthew, I heard your sermon on “Quit moving the jots and tittles” earlier today. There is quite a bit of “food for thought” in that teaching, so I will certainly look closely at those items.

    There is one specific point that I wanted to ask you about in that message, though. Near the end of the message, you made the following type of statement (I’m paraphrasing): “The Levitical priesthood has not been abolished – it is only suspended currently”.

    The question I have is: if the Levitical priesthood has been suspended, then could it be possible that the annual feasts have also been suspended? After all, in order for the annual feasts to be celebrated correctly (i.e., as per the Torah), Levitical priests need to perform the various ceremonies. So, since the Levitical priests are not functioning currently, then doesn’t it make sense that the annual feasts are also not functioning currently? (For that matter, the feasts also require the Temple to be in existence – and of course the Temple is currently destroyed.)

    If the feasts have been suspended, then of course that would mean that we should not try to celebrate them now, right? I would be interested to hear your take on this – I am trying to learn as well.

    Brian

  55. on 18 Jul 2010 at 4:53 amMark C.

    RE: the Shem Tov Hebrew of Matthew –

    According to George Howard, who translated and edited the manuscript, it is from the 14th or 15th century, and was contained in the twelfth (in some manuscripts, the thirteenth) book of the Even Bohan (The Touchstone), a Jewish polemical treatise directed against Christians. (George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995)

    There are a number of variant readings in this text which differ from all Greek manuscripts in extant. Such a late document that has as many variant readings as Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew can’t really support any claim to be more accurate than the older Greek manuscripts in existence.

  56. on 18 Jul 2010 at 6:57 amXavier

    T. J. Martin

    Also keep in mind Paul was a law keeper (Acts 21:24) and he still kept the law long after what you refer to as the New Covenant comes into play. Such as fiestdays,moral,civil, and ceremonial laws. If paul didn’t agree with the law he would sound like a hypocrite to me.

    I suggest you read verses within the context in which they are written. In other words, those times Paul is said to have observed a Torah-based practice was as an example of his willingness to become “all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22, cf. vv. 19–23) for the sake of advancing the gospel. ANd not because Paul was somehow supporting Mosaic Law whilst mainting a clear stance against its Christian adherence.

    This is noted in any standard Biblical commentary/dictionary, which more often than not provide us with a sound biblical exegesis:

    1 Cor. 9:20 I became as a Jew. Paul was a Jew (2 Cor. 11:22; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:5) and valued his Jewish heritage (Rom. 9:3–5), but the Jewish Messiah himself had nullified the distinctively Jewish parts of the Mosaic law (Matt. 15:11; Mark 7:19; Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:11–14; 6:2; Eph. 2:14–15).

    In Christ [and the New Covenant inaugurated via the shedding of his blood on the cross], God had created a newly defined people where there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Acts 15:9; Rom. 3:22; 10:12; 1 Cor. 10:32).

    became as one under the law. Paul was willing to adopt the Jewish way of life temporarily to gain a hearing among Jews (Acts 16:3; 21:17–26), but his ethnicity no longer defined his existence (Phil. 3:3).

    Even if this interpretation is wrong, Torah was clearly given for the Jews and not Gentiles like most people who are debating this topic on here!

  57. on 18 Jul 2010 at 7:03 amXavier

    David

    Christians are under “the law of Messiah” and not “the law of Moses”:

    1 Cor. 9:21 those outside the law. Outside the Mosaic law, which defined the Jewish way of life. not … outside the law of God … the law of Christ.

    Paul seems to distinguish between the Jewish law and something he calls alternately “the commandments of God” (cf. 7:19) and “the law of Christ,” which is of continuing validity for Christians, whatever their ethnicity. This second law appears to include the ethical teaching of Jesus as well as absorbing both the theological structure and many of the moral precepts of the Mosaic law. (See, e.g., Rom. 7:7, 12, 22; 13:8–10; Gal. 5:14; 6:2; Eph. 6:2)

    This “law of Christ” today would also include the moral commands of the NT epistles, since in them the apostles interpreted and applied Christ’s life and teachings to the NT churches. ESV Study Bible

  58. on 18 Jul 2010 at 11:51 amrobert

    “Thus by doing away with “man’s law” entrance into this Covenant is much easier… Following that logic… you might just have your ticket! 613 mitzvot is not at all hard to follow. Most of us here are following many of them already without knowing it. ”

    David
    This is just something I will know when and if it comes but It is a hope I long for.

    ———————————————————-
    “Matthew can’t really support any claim to be more accurate than the older Greek manuscripts in existence. ”

    Mark
    The main thing is it is structured like a hebrew which means it didnt come from a greek copy. I believe this copy has seen corruption as the greek has too The reference by the early church fathers give us the greatest witness to the original Hebrew Matthew.

    ————————————————————
    Even if this interpretation is wrong, Torah was clearly given for the Jews and not Gentiles like most people who are debating this topic on here!

    Xavier
    Thats correct.
    When you take hold of the covenant of Israel your are no longer a gentile and when a Israelite forsakes the covenant he becomes a gentile.

    “Christians are under “the law of Messiah” and not “the law of Moses”:”

    Xavier
    You need to learn the difference between christians. An old covenant christian also has accepted the new covenant which they might receive the reward promised by the Old they also receive the promise of Grace of the New. Following the Old is by choice if they want to be apart of the promise attached to that particular covenant.
    Salvation is for all mankind with love in their heart

  59. on 18 Jul 2010 at 12:02 pmXavier

    robert

    An old covenant christian also has accepted the new covenant…

    Jn 1.11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

    The Jewish rejection of the Messiah, despite convincing proofs of his messianic identity (esp. the “signs”), is one of the major emphases of the Gospel (see esp. 12:37–40). ESV Study Bible

  60. on 18 Jul 2010 at 12:47 pmrobert

    “Jn 1.11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ”

    Xavier
    This is speaking of the (Wisdom) Word of God NOT Jesus.
    ISRAEL REJECT THE WISDOM OF GOD , The same Wisdom that indwelled Jesus at His Baptism. The same Wisdom that was created before all other things were created.
    Either you must believe in a totally pre-existant Jesus as a trinitarian or understand IT was the WISDOM,WORD or HOLY SPIRIT THAT CAME FROM GOD To DWELL in the FLESH of JESUS.
    Being it was the Holy spirit that spoke thru Jesus that has caused all the confusion. When God spoke thru the prophets it didnt make the prophets God so why not see what was speaking and doing miracles thru Jesus.

  61. on 18 Jul 2010 at 3:27 pmDavid

    Guys,

    I’m still in the air over many other theological points (especialy Eschatology) I have no idea about this or that, or when the end is coming or any of that. Only G-d knows. I shoot many things around. However…

    So far in a nutshell what I do firmly believe thus far::

    1. Yeshua was extremely Pro-Torah. He had to be because he came to enact or fulfill the new covenant, and was a redeemer who comes from the old.

    2. Yeshua was anti-religious. That is against the spirit of religion. Time and time again we see him going against man made doctrines and perversions of written Torah (as it were in complete effect at that times even Yeshua before his death and resurrection was under Mosaic Covenant)

    3. I’m not so sure that (even as a Torah keeping believer; because I try to keep my observance in a historical & cultural sense) that Mosaic Law is even applicable today. This is because the new covenant is what was promised by the old, and by G-d. “Because they “broke” my commandments and my covenant, I will make a new covenant.”

    4. Paul and the apostles do affirm the Law and at the same time says that it is not there anymore. It is clear that he speaks against converting via circumcision because it is to go back under the law. If one is under the law, Paul argues that one must keep the entirety of it. Thus he is not invalidating it, but rather affirming what Yeshua did; (ie enacting the new covenant). I believe this is because without the Law, we could not have Messiah who has come to free us and the whole world by enacting G-d’s very own new Covenant which is kept by walking in love and faith. By cursing the law, we would be cursing the very origin of Moshiach, and the one (G-d) who gave it. By affirming it we are affirming Moshiach, who affirms the law, and affirms G-d… but we cannot escape the fact that a new covenant was promised to replace the old.

    The above is what I believe in my heart. The following is what I believe too, and is currently at this time the focus of my study. It is the purpose for which I was put here. This point is much more important than the other discussions about Torah… which are already explained in the bible.

    1. The issue of salvation. Today there is a doctrine on it which to my understanding lends most, if not all, of it’s strength to Romans 10:9. It appears that this is taken out of context. The entire epistle is given to the Romans whom already serve their own “lord”… the Emperor who is believed by loyal Romans to be a “divine ruler” of the entire world. This passage appears to be more of a request of a denunciation of their own King and an acceptance of the Messiah as King.

    Against the overwhelming weight of 99% of the rest of the gospel message and the very words of Yeshua himself, this current doctrine of salvation (as held by mainstream Christianity) makes Yeshua’s word null and void (which is G-d’s word as HIS word would be in Yeshua’s mouth) in the same way the Pharisees made G-d’s WRITTEN law null and void. teaches that it is not enough for one to walk in the ways of Messiah or to live by the spirit. That one who exhibits all of the fruits of the spirit is not saved for lack of making a decree.

    If one who desecrates G-d’s written word shall be cursed, how much more someone who desecrates G-d’s directly spoken word? It is the doctrine of hypocrites!

    In the spirit of Yeshua, I have to take a stance against any religious “creed” or law which limits the atoning work or makes null the very commandments of G-d as given to us through the living Torah that is Yeshua. This is why it is worth looking into, dilligently. It is also the primary cause of division of peoples of the earth today, who cannot agree to dissagree, and focus on the fact that we are living in the time where the entire world teaches the words of Yeshua!

    Baha’i Faith “Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.”
    “Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” “Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.” (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, LXVI:8 )

    Brahmanism “This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata 5:1517)

    Buddhism “Hurt not others in ways that your yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga 5.18)
    “A state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” (Samyutta Nikaya v. 353)

    Christianity “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12)

    Confucianism “Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” (Analects 15:23)
    “Tse-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘shu’ — reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’” (Doctrine of the Mean 13.3)

    Hinduism “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. ” (Mahabharata 5.1517)
    “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.” (Mencius Vii.A.4)

    Islam “Not one of you is a believer until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.” (Fourth Hadith of an-Nawawi 13)
    “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.” (Sunnah)

    Jainism “One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.” (Mahavira, Sutrakritamga)
    “Therefore, neither does he [, a sage,] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.” (Acarangasutra 5.101-2)
    “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.” (Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara)

    Judaism “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a; Tobit 4:15)
    “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Leviticus 19:18)

    Native American Spirituality “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Chief Seattle)
    “Respect for all life is the foundation.” (The Great Law of Peace)

    Paganism (Roman) “The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”

    Scientology “Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.”
    “Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.” (The Way to Happiness by L. Ron Hubbard)

    Shintoism “Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.” (Udana-Varga 5.18)
    “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.”

    Sikhism “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.” (Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299; Guru Arjan Devji 259)
    “Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world.” (Guru Japji Sahib)

    Sufism “The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.” (Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order)

    Taoism “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” (Tai Shang kan Ying P’ien, 213 – 218)
    “I am good to the man who is good to me, likewise, I am also good to the bad man.” (Tao Te Ching)

    Unitarianism “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” (Unitarian principle)

    Wicca “A’in it harm no one, do what thou wilt” (i.e., do whatever you want to, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). (The Wiccan Rede)

    Yoruba (Nigeria) “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”

    Zoroastrianism “Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself.” (Shayast-na-Shayast, 13.29)
    “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.” (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)

    Hmm… all of these are reiterations of what Yeshua commanded us to do… all on the lips of the Jewish and Gentile nations… we also KNOW for a fact that his work was so that the nations could enter into the New Covenant with Israel… This doctrine of the necessity of creed is suspect because in weight of the evidence, both scripturally and otherwise because it accuses our gentile brothers of being liars when the very words of Yeshua are on their lips. By doing so we are also calling Yeshua a liar… Yeshua came to do away with man made laws and religion period because it was the will of G-d as prophesied by Jeremiah; through him we have a perfect law against which there is no punishment: Love. Adapting this allows us as people to be one, and for G-d’s name to be one over all of creation. We have been deceived to see any differently.

  62. on 18 Jul 2010 at 5:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    Thank-you for the video link in msg. #46 above. I loved it. I had already believed that the original gospel written was an ancient Hebrew book of Mathew. The early church fathers talked about an ancient Hebrew book of Mathew that existed but they did not believe it’s authenticity because it did not match the Greek in many respects. From what I understand the Ebionites only followed an ancient Hebrew book of Mathew and didn’t follow any other gospel.

    I also read in an old history book published in the 1970’s that there were some biblical scholars (even back then) that disagreed with the majority view that Mark was the first gospel written but instead believed that the first gospel written (the illusive Q) was actually an ancient Hebrew book of Mathew. Everything in this video link seemed to support what I already had come to believe about the first original gospel being an ancient Hebrew book of Mathew.

    It’s too bad we don’t know for sure if this “Shem Tov Hebrew of Mathew” is actually based on this ancient Hebrew book of Mathew.
    But I think from all indications it is most likely based on a Hebrew book of Mathew that pre-existed and was passed down somehow to be eventually become translated into this “Shem Tov Hebrew of Mathew.”

    The evidence of it’s authenticity seems quite convincing to me. But of course I am just a layman with limited knowledge and have not even been a Christian that long in comparison with most of the people on this site. Thank-you again for posting this video link. I think I might watch it again next week-end since there was way too much information in it to take in all at once.

    Shalom and God Bless…

  63. on 18 Jul 2010 at 5:58 pmMark C.

    The main thing is it is structured like a hebrew which means it didnt come from a greek copy.

    The Hebrew structure shows that it came from a Hebrew mind, i.e., Matthew. That structure would be there whether he wrote it in Greek or Hebrew.

  64. on 18 Jul 2010 at 7:26 pmDavid

    Thomas,

    I’m glad you enjoyed it as well. It’s a very insightful video into many things “Yeshua”. Obviously the author doesn’t hold Yeshua as messiah, as that would mean that the time Jeremiah spoke of when prophesying the New Covenant is here, and thus would make his own Karaite faith… a bit superfluous. 🙂

    ———————–

    The great thing about the video is that Nehemiah provides undeniable Scriptural Evidence that Yeshua was extremely Pro -Torah, made it very clear he was proclaiming his Old Covenant faith and was extremely against the Pharisees “works”; by which they added man-made traditions and claimed they were G-d’s commandments; However, as prophesied… A redeemer would come, one who walked in Torah and whom G-d would put his “own words” into this redeemer’s mouth. This person died as a sacrifice G-d made to redeem all people… as blood atonement is required by Mosaic law. Every year blood atonement is made to cover the sins of Israel. It has to keep happening because it just wasn’t good enough until Messiah came and was given as the first fruits of Zion – redeeming us all. Thus… if there is no need to atone for sin because we’ve been redeemed, then we cannot be found guilty under that law; because it was paid.

    Thus it’s not a replacement but a fulfillment… Go practice Torah, it’s good… but all the death, punishment, and curses are gone because Yeshua took it upon himself.

    Yeshua (the man) did not come and take away Mosaic law. G-d himself made the enactment and had Yeshua submit in order to make it happen as prophesied. The good thing about THIS “takanot” is that it is the enactment of G-d through his human Messiah and not of men.

    Mosaic Law, existed to set apart the Jews from a heathen world that DID NOT teach “Love thy neighbor” as I’ve illustrated above is done today.

    No, they lived in a world that said “Burn your children in the fire so that we may have rain!”. People had religious rites and magic rituals that involved sex and animals”. They followed heathen gods and believed the world was shattered and to “Smite all who don’t follow ‘such-and-such’ god. The kindoms to the north ever proclaiming “all hail our Divine god-man Emperor who hails from Apollo himself!”

    Thus is why G-d sent his holy Torah to Moshe… But as we can see from the Teachings of Yeshua, and from what we see in the world today… THIS IS the day (haYom) written of in: Jeremiah 31:31-34

    Behold, the days come saith Yahava, that i will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
    Not according to the covenant that I made with thier fathers in the day that I took them by hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith Yahava:
    But THIS SHALL BE THE COVENANT that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days (days of Moshe), saith Yahava, I will put my law (Who’s law?: Yahava’s Law!) in their inward parts, and write in in thier hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people

    And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, (see the shemah) saying “Know Yahava”: for they shall ALL know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Yahava: for I will fortive their iniquity, and I will remember thier sin no more”

    Only if THESE decrees (What Jeremiah is speaking) vanish from my sight, declares Yahava, will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.

    These passages, along with lots of other passages are why I have to strongly disagree with anyone that says “Mosaic Law” is in force and applicable today or more than a noble cultural/historical pursuit in order to be closer to the historical Yeshua.

    Because it does not look at all of the decrees that G-d Himself made in the Tanakh, and also makes void an enactment made directly by G-d through Messiah. The idea that G-d will do away with Mosaic Law was not firstly a Christian teaching. It is in the Hebrew Bible…

    However, if one doesn’t believe Messiah didn’t come… Mosaic Law was fulfilled as it were necessary for the SEED promise thru Yeshua. But, the 613 Mitzvot are not the entirety of the Torah… it’s about the promise to Abraham.

    People get too caught up in the argument of the “Jewish Jesus”, and when they find him, they accidentally embrace what G-d finished through His work in his human Messiah and get tunnel vision.

    No “man” can create an edict to change G-d’s eternal Law. ONLY G-D HIMSELF can make such enactments to His own Torah. Yeshua knew this and made sure everyone knew he had not come to do away with anything… but as G-d’s agent/sheliach came and enacted G-d’s own will.

    (I know a lot of Messianic Jews and Jews who will have a serious problem with that…)

    The law was good, it led our people to be a light of the nations, and it gave us our Messiah, which brought us to the promise of Abraham. Messiah is for the Torah for it is Good… BUT by G-d’s own hand did G-d send Yeshua to die, enacting the New Covenant thus satisfying G-d’s Law in the Mosaic… This is why Paul’s writings are so confusing; He supports Torah because it is good and it is our origin, it is the origin and faith of Messiah. But to understand Torah is to understand G-d did not intend for the Mosaic Covenant to last forever… and that “changed” the very moment Yeshua died on the cross. This is why we have an extremley Pro-Torah Yeshua, and all the epistles are talking about not being under the law… How could he possibly teach people to break the written commandments of G-d before he died and took the sting of death away? That would be self-defeating and telling people to sin and to get punished. That was not Messiah’s role.

    The key is understanding that Yeshua was indeed a devout Jew and the prototype man after which we must model ourselves. But also that G-d himself is the one who made the enactment to take away Mosaic Law. It is in error that people are teaching one MUST follow it, because they are forgetting that G-d himself sent a redeemer to free us from any form of religion that has rules other than to “LOVE”

    Shalom! 🙂

    PS that is also a probable solution to some of the confusion we get with the words of “Pro-Torah Yeshua vs. Paul” The key is understanding that this is what G-d promised to do; to take away the Mosaic law.

    ——-

    Mark,

    I agree with you. The structure does prove that it came from a Hebrew mind, regardless of the original language it was written in.

    But… what is interesting is the very compelling argument and evidence the video brings up a strong argument about the first manuscripts being Hebrew. He’s really not just grasping at smoke either. I recommended watch.

  65. on 18 Jul 2010 at 8:32 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “This is why Paul’s writings are so confusing.”

    I have always had trouble making any sense out of Paul’s writings. Most people on this site know that I don’t put much trust in the writings of Paul. When-ever Paul or anyone else appears to contradict Yeshua/Jesus I dismiss the other person as being errant. Yeshua/Jesus is my teacher, Messiah and King not Paul or anyone else.

    You also said, “The key is understanding that Yeshua was indeed a devout Jew and the prototype man after which we must model ourselves.”

    I agree completely. Since becoming a mature Christian Yeshua/Jesus has become my one and only role model. Of course as a sinful human, with all the inherent weaknesses that go along with that, I fall short in many ways, but I do try…

  66. on 18 Jul 2010 at 9:26 pmXavier

    robert

    This is speaking of the (Wisdom) Word of God NOT Jesus.

    The whole prologue explains how God, through His son, is once again revealing Himself not only to the Jews but then the whole world. So the son now, in effect, embodies all those qualities like YHWH’s Wisdom [1Cor 1.14, 30], word [Jn 1.14] etc.

  67. on 18 Jul 2010 at 11:23 pmDavid

    Thomas,

    Completely true. Yeshua is the “author and finisher” of our faith. Paul is extremely tricky to read, if not understood properly because his words seem to contradict the the words of Yeshua. In one passage law is good, another passage law is something else. So he seems to be affirming and denying all in the same speech.

    —————–

    I think it’s best that we all understand who Yeshua was, that he was as true blue to Torah as possible, that he preached and taught Torah, and also that he is the redeemer who was prophesied by the the naviim, who enacted G-d’s new “deal”with israel as G-d shown us through the prophet Jeremiah. People sometimes (myself included at one point, not long ago) get too wrapped up in the fact that he was a Jew. Thinking that because Yeshua was a Jew that therefore they must be too; because he taught Torah… (Prior to his execution and resurrection.) I must be too, and then missing the rest of the work G-d did by His sacrifice of Yeshua. These people sometimes get so wrapped up with today’s Pharisaism that they “convert”. I’ve seen it happen to quite a fellow messianic believer first hand, friends and those who attended my shul. They get too wrapped up in Judaism, forgetting that todays Orthodox Jews are the continuation of the Pharisees which Jesus spoke against forcing their own laws as official Torah. Many of them “jump ship” from Christianity because of much of the stuff they get from Rabbinical Judaism they take as 100% truth, as if Judaism is for some reason immune to the corruption they see in the church.

    It’s not like any one religion has “it” all figured out. None of them do. Jumping from one religion that understands one portion of the truth, to another who understands another portion, one is forsaking half-truth for another half-truth.

    It is impossible to keep Torah in the sense that much of it is inapplicable. But it is noble to do so and I would recommend it. I certainly vouch for keeping the appointed times and holy days. Even Yom Kippur. Although we have been atoned for, it is good for one confess their wrongs and seek forgiveness. What part of Torah is dead? The death. No more need to kill people with rocks for messing up.

    Rabbinic Jews today believe much of it is inapplicable due to conditions making some mitzvot impossible… but, we still look to them, the Pharisees, to tell us that in the days of Messiah that G-d will bring back what he has already said he would take away… (I too was guilty of this.)

    I beg them to ask themselves… at what POINT do we allow G-d to “exercise” His own right to do as He had his prophets speak? Is it not written in the Torah? Could it be that scripture is misinterpreted by both mainstream Christian and Jewish bodies; out of the natural human inclination for self preservation of tradition? Who possibly finds it easy to say… “Darn… we were all wrong for 2000 years, our fathers taught us lies!”

    Look, I’m sounding like Paul! Torah is Good, Torah is not to be forsaken, but G-d alone reserves His right as G-d alone to amend his Torah. For He alone, HaKadosh Baruch Hu, is the only Law Giver. Only the Lord can give, and only the Lord can take away.

    Today’s Rabbinical Authority, has been deceived to miss this for keeping tradition of man’s doctrine and not “checking” themselves. Note the idea that they are self-proclaimed to be infallible to the point of negating the promise given by G-d.

    Today’s Christian Authority has been deceived to practice divisive and idolatrous doctrines… this is because they have failed to “check” themselves and have created more creeds, and are just as guilty as the Rabbinical body if not more so for they are supposed to be Moshaich’s.

    We as individuals must heed ALL the scripture, heed the words of King Moshaich, and seek understanding of the kingdom.

    … at what point will we too decide to actually follow Yeshua and become like little children. Children who stop viewing the world as shattered, broken, and different? When will we rise up and actually preach the Kingdom because as Yeshua said it IS here… this is what He died for… for all of us. I’m telling you we just don’t “see” it due to being blind and clinging to divisive doctrine instead of every word that comes forth from G-d almighty… But it IS here in our midst. If we choose to see. We need G-d’s holy spirit/ruach to show us these things, and cause an inner change in our hearts.

    Some people deny this as if to say, that’s impossible… as if to say that it is impossible for G-d to love that much! Would that not be blaspheme of the Holy Spirit?

    Is it possible that man can be more of a bleeding heart, more loving than the creator that he can naturally see no difference between spiritual and physical or between Jew or Gentile? Or is that the power of G-d? How can demons teach love? How can thorns bear good fruit? Can tares provide us with nourishment? No…

    What is good can only come from G-d because He alone is good, it is us who must seek to be conformed to His image and be one with Him as Yeshua was also one with Him. We must see past the division, and see that if we are to be one with G-d as is Messiah, then we must also cary the same desire to be one with each other.

    I carry no creed. Only beliefs. I believe in the one true G-d of Israel and His, Moshiach Yeshua. He is my G-d, Yeshua is our Lord Moshiach, and we must do as Yeshua taught… to unconditionally love one another, just has he did for us. If I had a creed, it is love and love alone.

    One must loose their religion in order to find their faith. Cast away division and embrace wholeness. And in finding their faith they shall find G-d and see His Kingdom.

    Shalom!

  68. on 18 Jul 2010 at 11:42 pmDoubting Thomas

    David,
    You said, “If I had a creed, it is love and love alone. One must loose their religion in order to find their faith. Cast away division and embrace wholeness. And in finding their faith they shall find G-d and see His Kingdom.”

    Amen brother! I think you are very wise for your years. Shalom…

  69. on 19 Jul 2010 at 11:55 amrobert

    David
    Yes the rest of the video was well worth the time.
    It provided an extra repoof of my belief on this matter. I had no idea there was 14 MSS of “Shem Tov Hebrew of Mathew” that hadnt been published. The problem i had STHM was some of it didnt match the witnessed accounts of the hebrew Matthew of the first several centuries which shows some corruption in the STHM. But thanks to this video i can see not all was corrupted.
    The great info in this video should be read by every christian so they can understand just what Jesus and the apostles taught and just what legalism they were against.

  70. on 19 Jul 2010 at 2:58 pmDavid

    What is very interesting to me and a good point to consider is the passage in Matthew 5:17-19… a few things “slide” past the eyes of one interpreting the passage to refer to Mosaic Law.

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Here there is actually a “dual” meaning when referring to the “law” and an inclusion and affirmation of the words spoken by the Prophets concerning things to come.

    It was not until Yeshua died that he said “it is finished”. Most understand this correctly to mean Mosaic Law, but Torah scholars assume this cannot be Mosaic Law… because of the apparent contradictions of Paul to this statement. Mosaic Law is not the entirety of the Torah… let’s take a deeper look into what “Law” Yeshua is talking about…

    Jeremiah 31:31-32
    31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

    32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

    33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    We all know this one… but here we have a reference to this New Covenant, a covenant of Mercy. We also have mention of a Torah that will be written in our hearts. Is there a parallel here that ties into what Yeshua said?

    We’ll have to read on…

    35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

    Here we have G-d giving us his “credentials” saying … I’m enacting this new Law, I’m the one who made the sun, governs the heavenly bodies and I alone divide the seas! As if to say “I am He who has the sole right and authority to do this!”

    36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

    37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

    Here G-d is saying if He drops these Laws, Israel will be no more… Then compares this to an impossibility: If you can measure the sky, and search out and explore the entirety of the earth and everything under it, then I will cast off Israel… In order to do that, G-d must do what he said in the passage right before: “Abolish his new Laws governing this New Covenant”.

    Following logic; If a covenant is eternal, the stipulations for which we must abide are also eternal. Thus the “law” spoken of above written on our hearts is the Eternal Law of G-d.

    Chapter 33:
    9And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,

    20Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

    21Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

    Here we have another. If we can some how figure out how to completely screw up the laws of nature themselves (impossible) then also he will Break his covenant with David, and there will be no successor, thus no returning Moshiach.

    25Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

    26Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

    Here we have more… as G-d is swearing on His own being as if to say “As sure as I live!”

    To sum up. Many of these promises by G-d concerning the Covenant of Mercy closely parallel what Yeshua says:

    (Paraphrasing)
    Yeshua: Until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle…not one single ordinance will pass from the law.

    G-d: Until the very laws of nature are turned up-side down… If you can somehow destroy the sun so it doesn’t rise (That would be the end of heaven and earth as we knew it)… If I can go back on my own word… (He can’t) if it is possible for man to do the impossible. (It is not) Then my law will depart from me, and I will let Israel be destroyed forever.

    Both of these statements and the passages in Jeremiah refer to an Eternal Law and an Eternal Covenant. 🙂

    ————

    Robert,

    I’m glad you liked it and it was able to further establish your faith. I am very curioious as to what is in those additional manuscripts, and I am also looking forward to the discovery of the other books of the NT which were also believed to be originally written in Hebrew.

    I do know that the hebrew Matthew uses the word “Teshuvah” where the NKJ uses the word “convert”… More so, I’m looking forward to an original manuscript of the letter to the Romans.

    If what is being written to the Romans about “confessing” means denouncing the Emperor… It would make sense this was omitted, as it was the Emperor that ordered it codified. It would just make no sense for him to do such a thing.

    The alternative is that according to Strong’s the Hebrew word used “yadah” for confess here is used something like 59 times in the bible… all of which mean “Give Thanks” or to “Praise”. Other definitions are to “shoot” or to “cast down”, but thats obviously not what is being discussed here. Only one or two times

    Romans 10:9 would then read:
    “9 If you [give thanks/praise unto G-d] with your mouth that Jesus is Messiah and believe in your heart that G-d raised Him from the dead, you will be redeemed.10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you [give thanks/praise unto G-d] and are saved.

    🙂 You will enter G-d’s court with ….. what? Thanksgiving in our hearts and Praise. This passage cannot refer to a “creed” in which one becomes an initiate of some church or denomination. This is a matter of the heart.

    Devout followers of the world’s myriad of different religions, and even today’s Rabbinical Judaism (they are truly such sweet people)… have met the requirements for this covenant as set forth by Messiah.

    Why isn’t this understood or taken more seriously by the Christian body? What happened to evangelical zeal? Why isn’t something like this shouted from the rooftops, taught at academies, or preached from the pulpit? Why isn’t there a Unity Broadcasting Network? Why does mainstream Christianity think the Dalai Lama is a product of evil? The man will tell you himself that Yeshua was a holy man, and to practice compassion! It must be because by a polarized (us vs everyone/everone is out to get us) cultish worldview, that all other religions that practice Love today and have the very same words of Yeshua as their CORE TEACHINGS (Which most certainly did not 3000 years ago!) are “false?” Isn’t all “religion” false?

    Yeshua is the Way, the Truth, the Life… not Christian Religion. Yeshua died and paid our way! He being the word manifest in human, gave us the word: Love thy neighbor. If we keep his commandments then we are BROTHERS in CHRIST… 🙂 Brethren with all who walk in G-d’s word as delivered through Yeshua, sanctified in the blood of the atoning sacrifice.

    But… what does the cult of religion have us do? We accuse our brethren of being the enemy. What force is the “Accuser of the Brethren?” I need not answer that it is the Adversary whom is defeated when the lies are destroyed by the very word of G-d that Yeshua said.

    I believe it is a spirit of religion and deception that we have failed to notice. Mainstream Christianity IS a bible cult… it has all the text book traits of a cult. This is why no-one will see it. They’ve been brainwashed and polarized by an US vs Them attitude typical of cults! If one googles “How to Identify a Biblical Cult” shockingly 90% of the laundry list of dirty deeds are applicable to our own mainstream christian organizations!

    We let the wolf in sheep’s clothing in. The wolf then tells us “Don’t go astray, there is a wolf out there, and he wants to devour you! Stay with me and you will live…”

    Lies lies lies! “Sin against G-d and eat!” says the viper! “You shall not surely die! You will become like Him! Knowing everything! Eternal Life!”….. likewise today the lie is the same but in reverse to those who are deceived! “Keep my docrine of demons!”, says the beast, I will give you eternal life. If you disobey me you shall die! For I am your god!”

    No you are not! Our G-d is One G-d! It is HIS Law that is eternal! One law for all! And we need no creed for G-d accepts us WHERE WE ARE.

    So, we can choose to rise above this non-sensible lower realm, governed by the evil one. Where most dwell. This state of being and mind, where the outlook is that all are divided and we believe all to perish… or we can rise above that land, into the heavenly realm where the spirit of G-d and his providence reside.

    Kabalah, (not the hoky poky woo woo kind) is the study of a science in which one learns to change their inner nature, to that of G-d’s… “Because he is forgiving, I shall practice forgiveness, because he is loving, I shall practice loving, etc…” Good flash movie overview here: http://www.perceivingreality.com/

    The kabbalists believe that in the spiritual realm, closeness or distance is not measured like in the physical realm. We measure things here with time and space. In the spiritual realm distance is measured by quality. God is seen as the “infinite bestowing light”. That which is of one quality is not close to something that is of another quality. However, that which is of similar quality is closer than that of different quality. However two that are exactly the same quality… with the same intention, will, feeling, and purpose…. are so close, that they are the same. They call this “Equivilance of Form”.. One who strives to come closer to G-d, becomes conformed to his image, and thus becomes One with G-d. It is like a drop of water joining the ocean. It does not become the ocean, but it becomes one with the ocean.

    I went into the “mysticism” part to explain that there are two powers at work in this world. The power of Moshiach, the higher power of all the hosts of heaven, and the power of the Enemy the lower power of the kings of the earth. G-d made it this way. It is not hebraic belief to feel say haSatan is an evil demi-god operating outside of G-d. That is actually considered to be a form of idolatry. But rather that the Satan was created as our “Adversary”, the prosecutor in the courtroom to challenge us. Though this challenge we have free will, and to make our choices to choose G-d over our evil inclination meaningful to G-d. Otherwise we would only be as the angels or other operatives like the forces of nature. When the Satan’s purpose is over, when all is complete, then he has no reason to exist any longer and is cast away forever NEVER to return.

    Now we can RISE up to the different realm and be with Moshaich. Or we can STAY down on the earth where the Satan lives.

    BUT because of this spiritual battle, the Satan will loose his dominion and be no where to be found. And there will only be the spirit of Moshaich.

    For as Moshaich transfigured into spirit to be with G-d when he left Earth. So as he shall return in spirit to dwell within the true believers…

    Yeshua: Hebrew… aren’t they from Media Persia?
    Greek misinterpretation of Jesus: Isn’t that from Greece?

    Yeshua got his power from his father, our G-d.
    The misinterpreted god-man gets his power not from G-d, but only from man.

    Wait… isn’t that in Daniel Chapter 8?

    Check it out. It’ll blow your mind. Search the scriptures and find for your self if this is true. Those sheep who hear the voice of the good shepherd shall recognize it. These are the very interesting times. We hear of wars and rumors of wars, and the end of the world…

    But is it a war of flesh and blood? Or is it about principalities and powers?

    Do not be afraid Israel and house of Jacob! Your redemption IS at hand.”

    I’m sure everyone here can put this all together. 🙂 I really hope so!

    שָׁלוֹם : שָׁלוֹם : שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם

  71. on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:10 pmDavid

    ^^^ That is what to “come up here in the clouds/heavenly realm” to meet him means.

  72. on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:34 pmDavid

    Really quickly, to explain what I meant by “non woo woo” Kabbalah. http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/what-is-kabbalah/myths-about-kabbalah#what-kabbalah-isn-27t

    Naturally, as followers of Yeshua we know what to do and how to live, one need not practice Kabbalah and I’m not saying that I’m an advocate or to go out and study. I’ve studied authentic Kabbalah for a couple of years and it gets a bad rap as being some kind of new age mysticism but it’s not, not at all. This video explains the confusion and what Authentic Kabbalah is.

    Just want to make sure everyone knows I’m not coming from the position of “outer space” or some new age thing, but only things pertaining to the Hebraic faith.

  73. on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:54 pmrobert

    David
    I have done some research on Nehemia and i must say i have never seen someone set aside their beliefs as completely as he has to search the whole truth.
    He may not claim to be a christian but this might be because he may not understand that there are other christians besides the traditional so called christian. Him seeing traditional christianity as defining christianity may have very well blocked him from researching to find there is still a remnant of the belief of the original christianity existing within small groups thru out the world. Ones that see christianity as a hebrew faith.
    All that he sees in modern christianity is pure paganism.
    What really get me about Nehemia is he still isnt judgemental and would work along side anyone to seek out the truth.
    He seems to be a bridge.

    http://jewsandjoes.com/blog/karaite-nehemia-gordon-the-ass-speaks-out-about-jesus-yeshua/

  74. on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:55 pmDavid

    Oh the bit about Daniel… that was “me” taking things out of context and applying figuratively. Naturally the goat with two horns isn’t Yeshua. But it does represent G-d’s Kingdom, G-d’s Israel. If you actually read it it goes on to mean a kingdom ruled by spiritual abomination that destroyed Israel, twice. 1st, temple 2nd temple. There are also plenty of other interpretations. Just to make that clear.

  75. on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:57 pmDavid

    Excuse me… “Ram” with two horns. I need to eat some lunch and get down one more cup of coffee. This kingdom was shattered twice…

  76. on 19 Jul 2010 at 4:13 pmDavid

    Ech, you know what? Forget anything I said about Daniel. Did I not tell you above I was horrible at ready Eschatology!? lol

  77. on 19 Jul 2010 at 4:26 pmDavid

    Robert,

    I’ve gotten that idea too. The seminar he was giving in the video most certainly appeared to be given to a Messianic crowd. It’s interesting to see someone look into the truth enough to drop it. Rabbinic Judaism as a religion still has such a huge hold on people, just as Mainstream Christianity today.

    It is quite possible he feels that way. Any Jew who hears from what they believe to be a perceived pagan religion that the commandments of G-d are “done away with”… will not even think to look at what that means. Considering the huuuuuge flub of of her beginning who in their right mind would? I completely agree.

    I too see Nehemiah as an honest seeker of truth who isn’t so stiff necked to think he knows it all… that inquisitive humble “I don’t know it all” attitude will get him to where G-d wants him.

    Did you order the book or DVD?

    ——

    On the Daniel thing… on second thought… The interpretation I gave might not be so off (I ran across something similar just a moment ago…); but do not take my word for anything I say when eschatology is concerned. When it comes to apocalyptic writings, there is 10000 interpretations for each one. I don’t think any of them however are ever meant to be taken as meaning anything else than symbols for “what is happening on earth in a spiritual sense”…

  78. on 19 Jul 2010 at 5:11 pmrobert

    David
    Here is Isaac Newtons take on Daniel.
    BTW he was a unitarian

    http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/6/8/7/16878/16878.htm

  79. on 19 Jul 2010 at 6:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I found the email from Nehemia in msg. #73 above fascinating. The comments following his email were very informing and reflective of our human nature…

  80. on 19 Jul 2010 at 7:31 pmrobert

    Thomas
    i have never met anyone of the Jewish faith that didnt look down at a Christian. this gives me great hope there will come a time within the near future where a Jew can fellowship with a Christian. My belief really doesnt differ all that much from Nehemia,other than i believe in the redemption and resurrection and exalting of Jesus. I think he serves a great example to all mankind

  81. on 19 Jul 2010 at 8:18 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I agree…

  82. on 19 Jul 2010 at 8:50 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Thanks for the link! I’m going to take a look at it. Issac Newton? As in the father of physics? A unitarian take on Daniel must surely be something worth reading! Apocalyptic writings for me are like grasping smoke. The revelation of which seems to click for a moment and then fades.

    The only thing I can say is that surely the spirit anti-christ is any power against G-d, but especially that which that puts the rule and teachings of men above the law of G-d, toppling G-d and usurping him. That is a form of idolatry I would think.

    I will check this out right now. 🙂

    Did you take a look into the book Nehemiah is selling?

  83. on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:14 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Wow… Nehemiah, is one cool dude. (Just read the email)

  84. on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:30 pmrobert

    David
    Yes Newton was a unitarian and actually spent more time in biblical and historical studies than he did in science.
    This writing is very long and very confusing but was the product of enormous research.
    I will research Nehemiah for a while to see just how his critics pick him apart to see if their explanations against him can achieve any merit. My guess from my research on this subject their only defense against him will be nonsensual explanations and mysteries as we see used by many to promote their false doctrines

  85. on 20 Jul 2010 at 1:46 amDavid

    Robert,

    Oh yeah, the spirit of religion… I can’t believe that Pastor said the anti-christ is moving him. May G-d bless Nehemiah for strengthening our faith. His tolerance and compassion and respect for people are hallmark of the very work of G-d.

    The majority of his critics will most likely be the by the rabbinical body and messianics. Every person belonging to a religious body is in fear of everyone else “infecting” them in some way and feels the need to attack preemptively in order to feel more valid about their own. Probably out of their own insecurity because deep down inside, they know something is wrong. They’re not even sure they have the answer, so it’s best to just project on everyone else.

    Likewise, my own belief (surprisingly shared by some here) that I preach fervently ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLEtGRUrtJo&feature=related ) will most likely come under attack by the religious Christian body. I haven’t preached it openly until now for fear that it may not be accurate. As a seeker of truth, I do not want to spread falsehood. Christianity controls the monopoly on TBN and DAYSTAR.One day I’m sure I myself will be called the anti-christ by “religious” christians and written about and shown on TV. All because I love our Creator and our Messiah.

  86. on 20 Jul 2010 at 2:53 amDavid

    I just wanted to add that Orthodox Jew, or Mainstream Christian (or anyone else)… I love them all, they are great people of spirit, even in their iniquity and I swear as Yahava lives I want to see them delivered. I hear them teach the things of Messiah fervently… even in blindness. So much has changed since 2000 years ago. It is as if today there is only one more tiny “shingle” left to fall away from peoples eyes. We are in some intriguing times.

    G-d showes us how sin works – We have a mind, a body and a spirit. It is amazing how many “know” what they should do but the “flesh” is strong. This is the first stage of corruption. The second step is the corruption of the emotions and mind (soul)… and then… corruption of the Spirit.

    Like the temples we once had in Jerusalem, they too like the appointed times are a blueprint of reality, these mapped after our being. Outer court, inner court, and Holy of Holies. Body, Mind/Soul, Spirit.

    At first we sin because it is good to the flesh of our bodies, but we know it to be wrong in mind/soul as our “inner court” is not corrupted. As sin corrupts it then takes hold in the mind/soul… at this point our body and mind is corrupted. Has anyone noticed the thinking of an addict? At this point the mind is backwards. What is good is bad and what is bad is good. Friends are enemy’s, and enemy’s are friends. Evil is good and good is Evil. (today… I am dealing with this with my dearest loved one, and beg you to pray for her… for she has no idea what she does.)

    The inner court: The spirit, is always good for it comes from G-d, for Fe breathed His Ruach into us to give us life… But as G-d cannot live with sin, when the holy of holy’s is finally desecrated… can G-d live there? No. Can He abide sin?

    At this final stage of corruption of our “temple”… G-d must retreat for sin and G-d cannot co-habit. At this point G-d’s spirit removes itself from us…

    Love is Contagious… and sustains. I have no doubt that if the world were covered in nothing but love there would be no death or aging…

    Perhaps you have heard of this study: Scientists did a study with baby monkeys. One was raised and fed by a metal robot-like contraption… The second was raised with the same robot contratption, but this one was made to look like a mother monkey with fur and what not. The third was raised with it’s real mother.

    I’m sure everyone here can figure out which of these lived the shortest, and which lived longer and longest.

    It is scientifically proven that without love we’re dead.… I’m actually not sure why I felt compelled to share this… Maybe someone will get something deep from it one day. Who knows….

  87. on 20 Jul 2010 at 6:39 amDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “It is scientifically proven that without love we’re dead… I’m actually not sure why I felt compelled to share this…”

    I’m glad you did. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not afraid to speak from their heart and to declare how they honestly feel. I have a lot of respect for that. I’d much rather talk to someone who is speaking from their heart than a cold emotionless so called expert any day of the week…

  88. on 20 Jul 2010 at 11:57 amDavid

    It’s just interesting the way my life unfolded and the names I’ve done. I was born with the last name (not sure how I got it) Fox which in numerology is 666. Apparently at that time of my birth my mother was seeing someone named Ron Fox. I was raised by my grandparents by the last name of Triplett. Who raised me in a “trinitarian” home. I then went from the “trinitiarian” religious ideal to the ideal that rules/laws other than love were what was necessary. I went from bondage to bondage, from anti-christ to anti-christ and a war waged in my mind.

    For a long time, after my revelation of only Love and the words of Yeshua, I had nightmares. Every night some half-lucid dream of the most bizarre stuff for 7 years it’s been this torment, exploding head syndrome, and night terrors. I would sleep in all day long, always tired. Today I sleep much much better sweet sleep, with no torment. I’m going on 4 hours and i’m fully refreshed.

    Today I am a hebraic christian of the abrahamic faith, and I owe it all to G-d and Yeshua.

    My real biological father, his name was Robert K Salvador (meaning “salvation”), I have never met the man face to face.

    My wife’s family comes from De Leon (the lion)… she today is going thru trouble but as Yahavah lives I will not abandon her.

    It is interesting how G-d puts these parallels in our lives to show us what was going on inside of us spiritually.

  89. on 20 Jul 2010 at 1:15 pmDavid

    ^^^ after the revelation, I went on this long journey through history… and ended up in Messianic Judaism, almost going to Orthodoxy, but always remembering my Savior. This is the 7 year period that lead to today… So it was like I came to the revelation of G-d through our Messiah and was rebelling against it without knowing what I was doing. It is no wonder that I had such torment. It is that sort of deception which is the work of the enemy.

  90. on 20 Jul 2010 at 5:00 pmrobert

    “3. The Mosaic law is still in effect – but God is only calling Israelites to follow it.

    In other words, the thought is that the Mosaic law is still in force – and it will be until the new heaven and the new earth are created (i.e., after the Millennium). However, the Mosaic law was only given to natural Israel – i.e., genetic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – so God never intended for Gentiles to follow it. As a result, this doctrine states that only genetic Israelites – plus Gentiles who explicitly become proselytes to Judaism – are called to follow the law.”

    Brian
    Getting back on track I would like to address this.

    Isaiah 56:1-8 shows this promise is open to gentiles without becoming a Jew. Never says once that they are joined to Israel, It say those who join themselfs to GOD. This is the same offer a Israelite received. we have had a lot of discussion within this thread that shows Judaism of Jesus’ day was not the same delivered to Moses..

    Now to show there is a separate promise from the 1000 year kingdom in which by Grace comes salvation.
    Looking in Revelation 7:9-17 we find a multitude that were redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. We also find in this passage God dwelling with mankind,no thirst,no hunger,no need for sun, living fountains of waters and God wiping away all tears.

    Then in Revelation 21 we find that this is where God dwells with mankind, the place where living fountains of water exist removing all thirst, we find the tree of life giving forth food removing all hunger,we find God and the Lamb providing al light and Here we find God wiping away all tears.

    In Revelation 20:11-15 we find the first time the book of life is opened for judgement and It calls it the Lambs because those in it were redeemed by his blood.

    I can not understand why this is written so clear and people still put a blind eye to the words of it.
    When you can separate the promises made to Abraham all major contradictions become understandable because one is an apple and other is an orange.
    Anyone who says they can reconcile them without separating the promises is lying to themselfs

  91. on 20 Jul 2010 at 5:01 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “Today I sleep much better sweet sleep, with no torment.”

    I’m glad to here that. I too went through a period of my life when I had great difficulty sleeping and never really feeling refreshed and replenished.

    You also said, “She today is going thru trouble but as Yahavah lives I will not abandon her.”

    I’ve been praying since the other day when you said someone close to you needed prayer. Now that I know it’s your wife I will pray even more.

    You also said, “It is that sort of deception which is the work of the enemy.”

    I agree. 1st. Peter 5:8 says, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

    Shalom and God Bless…

  92. on 20 Jul 2010 at 5:28 pmDavid

    Doubting Thomas, thank you!

    I am pleased to announce that my wife is doing much better and has had a complete change of spirit and heart! She’s going thru some hardships and has been just out of energy and spirit for months, and today her strength has been renewed and she is positive again. 🙂

  93. on 20 Jul 2010 at 6:26 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “Today her strength has been renewed and she is positive again.”

    Praise God! It’s so good to hear some good news especially at a time when so many bad things are happening like Christian missionaries being gunned down in Pakistan etc…

    By the way I just clicked on your video link in msg. #85 above and I love it. It is the message that I believe Yeshua/Jesus wanted us to preach to the world. We are to be like a shining light onto the world. I pray for everyone (missionaries and layman alike) who are reflecting the light of our Messiah and spreading his message throughout the entire world…

  94. on 21 Jul 2010 at 3:57 amDavid

    I was told in another forum (where Nehemia’s email was posted) that I was preaching Satan. It breaks my heart to see a brother his way like this due to a spirit of religion. They can always be identified. I sent testimony a couple times, and left not looking at the response. I’m just going to have to give it to G-d.

    I trust one day, and very soon that the revelation of G-d’s world to come will actually be here. That must be what all this 2012 stuff is about. The end of the age. Although it’s not biblical, we see other cultures that say first the age of the ram (Mosaic), then the fish (Jesus), then the water bringer (G-d). (Who pours out water all over the earth). One can’t ignore the signs that G-d has given to all of the nations. The sages say a wise man learns from everyone.

    I try to learn from my son and I do every day. Everything is a treasure to him. Even the stupidest things. I want to be like him.

    I really appreciate your prayers. 🙂 They brought the rain! The word is a seed. We plant it in people. But just like G-d in the Torah didn’t make the vegetation grow until after Adam (it says there were no trees, strangely out of order…) so is this. Midrash says this was so because G-d wanted Adam to pray for rain to make the vegetation grow. Interesting parallel. This must be why we are to pray for those who persecute us, who try with all of their might to say we are sinners, that we are dirty, when G-d says we are white as snow.

    We can follow the “god” that is not in us (he that is in the world), the one that compares us to something not in us. “You did this wrong, you did that wrong by MY standard. Therefore you are condemned and judged, and you must judge others for their sins!” Perpetual state of Judgement… Or we can follow the G-d that is IN us… He who does not blame and thus is blameless in the eyes of G-d, and no ill word is found in him.

    G-d who is in me gives me life, the “god” outside of me… why follow that? That is not G-d’s law. I’m not dirty! I’m not of Satan! I’m clean and you cannot touch us!

    I pray this spiritual warfare ends soon, and no more disasters like in Pakistan or anywhere else….! This has been my dream since as a child! May it come soon! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8zK7PHIkgA

  95. on 21 Jul 2010 at 9:25 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    I’m just now getting another chance to continue the dialogue with you. I was out of town over the weekend and have been spending time with family and working also. I would though like to comment on the other passages you cited (Acts 10:15; 11:9; I’ll get to Rom. 14:14 later) that seem to teach (in some minds) that the Torah has been abolished. I realize you are very familiar with these texts, but I would like to explain to you my understanding as it may be helpful in our discussion and also to others who might be following.

    ACTS 10:15 & 11:9

    The context here is referring to the man Cornelius whom Luke calls a devout man that feared God (Acts 10:2). We also learn that he was considered “upright” (Acts 10:22) which is a word used of Joseph (Mt. 1:19) and the righteous sheep of Yeshua (Mt. 25:37). God even was hearing the prayers of Cornelius for they had come up as a memorial before God (Acts 10:4) so we know Cornelius was not turning his ear from hearing the Torah, or else his prayer would have been an abomination (Prov. 28:9).

    Basically put, the issue was that Cornelius was uncircumcised and the vision given to Peter was to assure Peter that it was perfectly okay to go to Cornelius and witness to him about the salvation that existed in the Son of God. More on this in a second.

    The vision given to Peter (Acts 10:9-16) was a large sheet that contained all sorts of animals – clean and unclean. The voice in the vision tells Peter to get up, kill (sacrifice) and eat. Peter’s response to the voice, “No Lord! I’ve never eaten anything common or unclean!”

    Most theologians place that events in Acts 10 approximately 5 to 10 years after the ascension of Yeshua into heaven. Why is it then that Peter didn’t learn that it was okay to eat unclean animals from Yeshua? People try to use (as you have) Mark 7 to teach that Yeshua abolished the dietary laws but Peter was there in Mark 7 and that is certainly not the message he got from his Teacher.

    The voice then talks back to Peter and says, “What God has made clean, you must not call common.” A more accurate/technical translation here is, “What God deems to be clean, you should not call common.” The point is not that God is cleansing something “anew” right here in Acts 10, but rather that Peter should not deem common what God deems clean. Notice that the voice never tells Peter to call something unclean, clean. The voice specifically uses the word “common” when correcting Peter. There is a difference between something common and unclean.

    And unclean animal would be like a camel or pig. However, something common would be a cow that had been strangled or not slaughtered properly. The animal itself is not unclean, but is considered common in this instance because of surrounding circumstances. Yeshua is telling Peter, “The things that God considers clean, don’t refer to them as common.”

    Acts 10:17 tells us that Peter was deeply perplexed (HCSB) about what the vision he had seen might mean. I ask you – why? Almost everyone in modern times I talk to seem to interpret the vision very quickly and readily by saying you can eat unclean animals. Peter, however, knew that Yeshua – the sinless Son of God – was not telling him to violate the Torah. This is why Peter was perplexed. He knew that there must be another meaning to the vision.

    While Peter thought about the vision (Acts 10:19) 3 men showed up at his house looking for him. I believe this corresponds to the 3 times the events of the vision happened to Peter (Acts 10:16). These men come into Peter and explain to them what had taken place back at Cornelius’ house and Peter travels to meet with Cornelius.

    In Acts 10:28 we get the climax of the story. Peter speak to Cornelius and tells him, “You know it’s forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner…” Now, let’s stop here for a second. What did Peter mean by “forbidden?” Was Peter saying that the Torah of Moses forbade such? I do not believe so. The Torah of Moses welcomes the stranger and teaches to treat them as one born among Israel (Ex. 18:12; Num 15:14-16; Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34).

    Peter’s mentioning of forbidden is a reference to the “Oral Torah” of the Jewish people of the day. This is what was then called the “tradition of the elders” (Mt. 15; Mk. 7). This is what Yeshua often taught against in places like Luke 6 and John 5.

    Think back upon the ministry of Yeshua. He was ridiculed by the Pharisees and scribes for eating with tax collectors and sinners (Lk. 15:1-2; Mt. 9:10-13). These people were considered “common” by certain Pharisees, but not by Yahweh God. Yahweh deemed such people clean and the Pharisees should not call common what Yahweh calls clean.

    We even see in places like John 4 and John 8:48 that the Samaritans were considered to be “common” by many Jewish people of the day. On the contrary, Yeshua witnessed to the Samaritan woman in John 4 and in John 4:39-42 many Samaritans believed in him and he stayed with them in their city for 2 days teaching. Yeshua did not call common what Yahweh deemed clean.

    Peter was learning in his vision that just because Cornelius was uncircumcised did not mean he was common. Peter’s father Abraham was called in uncircumcision and even justified/declared to be righteous before he was circumcised. God showed Peter that he shouldn’t call any man (uncircumcised man) common or unclean (Acts 10:28).

    Much more could be said on this chapter. If anyone is interested, I have taught a full length sermon on this text that can be found here:

    http://ministersnewcovenant.org/audio.html

    The Sermon number is #227

    Shalom, Xavier,
    Matthew

  96. on 21 Jul 2010 at 10:32 amDavid

    Matthew! Beautifully put!

    Grace is like us. We who were once unclean beasts are now made white as snow according to His Glory! We are not unclean or common! If Torah is outside of one and we have to bind it to our flesh but do not understand the concept of Grace & Mercy then it is possible that it is not inside of us and that our faith is works-based, in stead of all our works being faith based. The Torah transforms and is inside of us, our mezzuzot inside inside of us, bound to the gates of our inner-most secret place! So true…!

    Shalom! 🙂

  97. on 21 Jul 2010 at 10:40 amrobert

    Is the Mosaic Law Relevant to ANY Christians?

    We have had alot of great discussion but few have addressed the question at hand. This is a great question because Brian was extremely honest with why he asked.
    The way i see it is if the Law has no purpose in this age then why is it still followed and preached by ALL the Apostles but then on the other hand we find that salvation is not based on the Law. Why would the Apostles follow and preach something that wasnt relevent and then turn to say that what they follow and preach wont save you.
    My question is how can 2 different groups be both right and wrong? What are they missing in both doctrines that has caused this?

  98. on 21 Jul 2010 at 11:42 amDavid

    I’ve been wrestling over this for this for a while – I finally realized for myself that it is not relevant but there is something that is…

    That is the external Torah. G-d wanted to be made manifest to Israel through… But Satan working his works blinded the nation making following those as a lot of judgement, and using it to judge. One must please G-d by following external rules. Accusing people of breaking them, condemning them, and killing them. It did reveal to them the nature of the way things are with “left hand” / “right hand”, but the whole Torah reveals that it is Love that is at the heart.

    Spirit of Messiah is on the Right hand, and the Spirit of Satan is on the other hand of what Kabbalists (the authentic ones) call the tree of life… this is the blueprint they have for all of existence.

    http://www.plotinus.com/images/kabala.jpg

    Judgement/Severity is on the “left” hand of G-d, Mercy is on the “right” hand of God, the totality of all existence being these qualities, and also being G-d. This is why Jews do not believe Satan is the opponent of G-d. but a servant created by G-d to be our prosecutor accusing us and challenging us, in order to make the our choices meaningful. In the OT we see that the Satan can only do what G-d tells him to do.

    The internal Torah is one of Mercy and Grace. This one is found in our hearts, is what was attempted at being revealed by the first, but the Adversary got in the way of that.

    The mark of the beast (man or created things) is having these laws of the Shema outside of us, but not inside. The mark of the saved are those who have these on the inside.

    It’s a battle of Man vs G-d… but it was pre-destined by him that eventually we would have submission vs disobedience and Eternal Life here in His Kingdom on earth. 🙂

    That is my opinion, or understanding. I am interested in seeing any others. 🙂

    If we see Jeremiah, it talks about a new enactment of law with a new covenant nothing like Moses’. This is the Law that the apostles are talking about. Some Messianic will have you believe “not like the one” means “exactly the same one”… I’m not sure how they arrived at that conclusion other than by blindness due to a spirit of religion, and religious pride. I used to be there, I used to be one of those who thought that everyone needed to be Mosaicized, falsey believing that because Jesus was a Jew we were supposed to be all Jewish because the TOrah he taught must have been the Mosaic… This thinking makes the cross of NO VALUE and we enter into a kingdom of works and judgement. Been there, done that… everything bad in my life is because of that. When you are in “that” kingdom, we start accusing others of being sinners, when we are CLEAN of that because of the atoning sacrifice! Thus out of love and mercy, we must not Judge, but let G-d judge.

    G-d is in us.
    Since His word does not return back to him null and void…
    Do not speak judgement.
    As that returns back to G-d in us.
    Thus by our mouth we judge our selves as there is power of the tongue.
    As each word is from G-d within us, it is words of G-d. That word is truth, and it is a sword that cuts BOTH ways. (double-bladed) Thus we shall be judged by that.
    Speak mercy and salvation.
    That returns back to us.

    My word shall not return to me null and void. Let us Judge not!

    🙂

  99. on 21 Jul 2010 at 12:47 pmJim Butler

    Hi all. I have been corresponding with Brian over the past few weeks. I will participate here as I have the time.

    My brief “take” on the purpose of the law is this.

    No one can be saved by obeying the law. Why? Because all have sinned. Only the Messiah could be saved by keeping the law. He lived a sinless life. I also believe that is why he can be our savior. If he had sinned he could not have been.

    Is the law done away then? Of course not. God’s law has always been for our good. The sacrifices and some of the rituals of the law were instituted and added to the law until Christ came, but that, in no way, did away with God’s law, his principles, his way of life.

    The ten commandments and the many principles and statutes mentioned in the Old Covenant have always been good for mankind. They bring life and liberty to man. They are not oppressive in any way. Man can add to these principle, as the Pharisees did, and make them oppressive but that has never been God’s way.

    Our hearts are deceitful. Jer. 17:9 tells us the predominant trait of our hearts is that of deceit, and also desperately wicked. As we begin the conversion process and for our entire lives, that deceitful heart is always with us. Personally, I think that was one difference between Christ and all other humans. I don’t think Christ had a deceitful heart. He was born without that carnal nature. I could be wrong on that.

    God’s plan is to eventually bring all of us, through a long process, where we finally have the nature of God, a godly heart—and a godly mind and behavior. It will not happen until we are changed. We will have carnality our entire human lives.

    So the law “objectifies” God’s nature. We should not think our hearts are good. They are not. As we become more like God I do think our hearts change in that direction-they become more godly. But, I think the biggest and most common proclivity for humans, especially with religious people (including true Christians) is to be self-righteous. We have to fight that tendency constantly.

    I think it important to understand God has not, and is not, been giving most people a chance at salvation. He is calling first fruits now. Absolutely does not make these people that are having an opportunity to be first fruits now better people. Any one that believes that is self-righteous and will not be a first fruit.

    The vast majority of people will have an opportunity for eternal life after they are resurrected. God did not have the Bible written in a way where this plan is clear. Many things are very unclear. God’s ways are way beyond our understanding. He does give us enough. I should say, he gives those having an opportunity now enough. I think just enough, not too much. This can be frustrating to us, but again, it is his plan, not ours.

    So, no we are not saved by keeping the law. All of us have sinned so that option is out. But once we are called by God we must, with the power of his spirit be diligent in trying to keep his law, his principles, his way of life with all our mind, heart, and soul (behavior). Because we all start at a different level of maturity, etc. only God is qualified to determine and decide who he will make first fruits. It is the greater resurrection.

    God’s law, as given from the beginning, has always been for our good. He is God after all.

    Jim

  100. on 21 Jul 2010 at 1:25 pmDavid

    ^ That’s how the Jezebel spirit that we see affecting all the different religious organizations struggling to be the “only” way, and thats the spirit we see in our politics…

    Throw on TBN or Daystar… You can discern what is good teaching, and when people are judging. If we hear that left hand of judgement accusing of being sin, then playing the victim, then professing to be better than them. You will see it. I saw this when they were talking about a Mosque today. I feel it would be good to pray always, and only speak blessing even though it is hard at times. It is the right hand of mercy who acknowledges the wrong and asks us to pray and sees us all as children.

    May the spirit of Jezebel loose her grip and be bound and destroyed soon, amen and amen!

  101. on 21 Jul 2010 at 1:58 pmrobert

    David
    If you follow the whole context of Jeremiah 30,31 you will understand this is about the gathering of whole Israel(Northern kingdom and Judah) and this covenant being established with them. To know this is still future at the very end of this passage is a very bold statement that “it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.”

    When this covenant in Hebrews 8-12 is mentioned it is to those of the Old Covenant showing them that a New Covenant was a must because there was a necessity for changes because Jesus was now the High priest and the sacrafice. Also the temple was moved to heaven.
    The matter of fact is all of Hebrews was written to address these changes and to assure those of the hebrew faith that there still will be a future kingdom as was promised to Abraham.
    This is where we find the kingdom restored will be during the Sabbath rest of God.
    None of Hebrews is relevent to a christian unless he also wants to take hold of this promise and for certain none of this is relevent to those redeemed before the time of Jesus of all mankind by the redemption of Jesus atonement for Adams sin.
    As Jesus’ sacrafice was for the redemption of all mankind from the written ordinances(book of dead) caused by Adam’s sins by nailing it to the tree.(a fresh start) we also find in Hebrews that Jesus’ sacrafice was made the only sacrafice a hebrew needs to be forgiven. Hebrews also addresses faith because they were no longer going to have even a temple in the near future. They already were not able to do sacrafices because the temple was damaged at the death of Jesus and was that way till the temple was destroyed.
    If you are going to use Hebrews you need to use all of it, not just parts taken out of context.

  102. on 21 Jul 2010 at 2:22 pmrobert

    Jim
    That was very clear.
    There is just a few things i didnt agree with but they are outside of the main subject.
    One is that I dont think God would deceive us by making Jesus unable to sin , I read that he was obidient to Gods ways which makes no sense if he couldnt be disobidient.
    The other is the bible is way clearer than you make it out to be, It is only confusing when we let misconceptions read it for us.

  103. on 21 Jul 2010 at 4:46 pmJim Butler

    Robert,

    Just for clarification, I did NOT say God created Christ so he was unable to sin. I can see how you might draw that conclusion from my speculation that Christ did not have a carnal nature. I believe it was possible for Christ to sin but he was the “second Adam” and I believe a different “type” of human being, the unique human who was our savior.

    In many areas the Bible is clear. From my perspective, in a number of areas and doctrines, it is not. One of several reasons why there is so much division within “Christianity.”

    Jim

  104. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:11 pmDavid

    Robert,

    I’m a bit confused, can you please elaborate on what I took out of context? I tend to be long winded, and if I missed something I would certainly like to learn. I’m a bit scatterbrained and tend to ramble but if you can point me to what it was that I specifically said, that would be super cool!

    I love how you called the external “man’s laws” the book of the dead, when in contrast to the inner law of Torah. I’ve never actually thought of it that way. 🙂

  105. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:16 pmrobert

    Jim
    There is only on type of human, are you implying he was his own race or are you just following tradition.
    BTW we know from Genesis that THE Adam was spiritual till he sinned and came from heaven on earth (Garden of Eden). The first adams were not
    Jesus was the pure seed of THE Adam , thus the title Son of Man.

  106. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:24 pmDavid

    Jim,

    Being unitarian I understand the “trinity” different… I see them as a chain. God —–Holy Spirit—->–Man–

  107. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:25 pmDavid

    ^^^ Can I get a mod to take a look at what happened there to my last message? I had some questions I wanted to ask to learn what Jim’s position was on some stuff… but behold, I touched something and broke the internet! >_

  108. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:37 pmDavid

    Robert,

    Oh I see what you are talking about… I’m not sure what I think, but that’s okay… Thanks for pointing me in the direction of something to inspect for myself! 🙂 Ur, one cool dude.

  109. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:39 pmDavid

    Robert….

    So… are we talking about natural israel, you mean the Jews who where there and alive at the time of Jesus’ sacrifice, and spiritual israel meaning the people who have come to Jesus after?

  110. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I loved the video link in msg. #94!! I have never heard of an American Hasidic Jewish Reggae musician before. I’m probably dating myself but my favorite music is from the 60’s 70’s and 80’s. I loved the lyrics and put this video on my Christian playlist on You Tube. If you have anymore inspiring music videos I’d like you to send me the links so that I can also put them on my Christian playlist. I’ve always found music inspiring.

    I also agree with what you said in msg. #98 “Thus out of love and mercy, we must not judge, but let G-d judge…(and)…Speak mercy and salvation. That returns back to us.”

    Welcome to KR Jim

    I agree with everything you said in msg. #99 above. However I disagree with where you said, “Jer. 17:9 tells us the predominant trait of our hearts is that of deceit, and also desperately wicked.”

    I believe it is saying our hearts can be deceitful and that we should not rely solely on our hearts to guide us. I don’t agree that deceit is the predominant trait or that our hearts are deperately wicked. We all need and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us in our day to day lives. Therefore I believe we need to carefully listen to our hearts at all times.

    If you are in doubt than you should get together with other Christians (people with the Holy Spirit) and discuss your doubts with them. Jesus said, “When two or more of you are gathered in my name I will be there among you (guiding you).” If you are always ignoring what your heart is saying, how can Jesus and his Holy Spirit possibly guide you???

    BTW – I am just a layman and trying to learn as much as I can…

  111. on 21 Jul 2010 at 5:52 pmrobert

    David
    The New Covenant is still a future reality after the elect is resurrected. The written word is all we have of the torah at this point other than the guidence of the Holy spirit when we have repented and cleansed.
    I see no evidence that the torah is written inwardly or havent met someone with this special writing. They would have all the answers without ever opening a bible.

    The book of the dead is the mark all mankind received when Adam sinned and was nailed to the tree with Jesus. Which means that Jesus redeemed all mankind by his sacrafice.
    Now only our own personal sin can get our name rewritten in the book of the dead and loose the gift of grace.
    the book of the dead has nothing to do with the torah and nor does the Lambs book of life. These books are used after the 1000 years kingdom of the elect who followed the torah to be sanctified(set apart) from other nations.
    Everyone will receive salvation unless they flat out turn it down by the sins mentioned within the NT. These are deadly sins against humanity. There are billions today that will receive salvation out of every religion because even without the knowledge they follow the morals set forth for salvation. They are a law unto themself which means they have the morals of a christian

  112. on 21 Jul 2010 at 6:28 pmSean

    David,

    Please try to combine your comments rather than leaving so many in a row, it overwhelms the recent comments board.

    thanks

  113. on 21 Jul 2010 at 6:54 pmDavid

    Sean

    I’ll try be more aware of that so that I don’t flood the board! 🙂

  114. on 21 Jul 2010 at 10:34 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I just read your exchange of emails where Hanok said you were not practical or realistic with your teachings of love and implied you were just one of ‘Satan’s fake LOVE puppets’ at the Nehemia Gordon: JewsandJoes Blog. Don’t let these negative people get you down.

    I am also a dreamer just like you and regardless of what people of THIS world say that is not a bad thing. Yeshua/Jesus was also a dreamer. I couldn’t find it in biblegateway.com but I remember how he said something about dreaming or longing for the spark to become ablaze (I wish I could remember the exact quote).

    I also agree with what you said, “Let the Jew be a Jew and a Gentile a Gentile and leave each other alone and make peace in G-d’s kingdom.”

  115. on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:26 amJim Butler

    Hi all,

    Robert, you said:

    “There is only on type of human, are you implying he was his own race or are you just following tradition.”

    My reply:

    I believe Christ was human. He is our older brother and the “second Adam.” He was conceived by God’s spirit so did not have a human father. To my knowledge, he is the only human conceived that way. A different race? I would not put it that way, but do believe, because of the way he was created he was different from any other human born before or since. He lived a sinless life. No other human has even come close to that.

    Hope that helps.

    Hi Doubting Thomas. Thanks for the welcome.

    You said:

    “I don’t agree that deceit is the predominant trait or that our hearts are deperately wicked.”

    My reply:

    You said the heart can be deceitful but don’t believe deceit is the predominant trait or desperately wicked. It would be good to know how you explain what it says in Jer. 17:9. “The heart is deceitful above all things. and desperately wicked; who can know it.”

    From my perspective, there is much to understand why Jeremiah described our hearts this way. It gets at the very core of what God is doing with us humans.

    Of course not all our thoughts are wicked. That is not what it’s saying. Our mind and heart, I believe, are God’s greatest creation. Complex beyond our understanding, yet with a potential for good and evil that we cannot even imagine, yet.

    Kind regards, Jim

  116. on 22 Jul 2010 at 12:11 pmrobert

    “I believe Christ was human. He is our older brother and the “second Adam.” He was conceived by God’s spirit so did not have a human father. To my knowledge, he is the only human conceived that way. A different race? I would not put it that way, but do believe, because of the way he was created he was different from any other human born before or since. He lived a sinless life. No other human has even come close to that.”

    Jim
    Nowhere does it state Jesus was concieved without a human father, it just states that the power of the Holy spirit caused the conception without intercourse. The fact is Joseph is identified as the bloodline that the Messiah would come from and Luke provides the geneology. I know some try to say this is Mary’s geneology by stating Heli is said to be Mary’s father by jewish writings but they also say she was raped by a roman to concieve Jesus.Plus Mary was a cousin to a daughter of Aaron making her bloodline probably Levi. Joseph is the only connection to David thru the flesh and that is stated many times. The Messiah could only be son of David thru blood, Not adoption. So to hold your belief i would have to ignore clear truths and make up others. I choose the clear teachings over tradition.
    I agree he lived a sinless life but see he received the Holy spirit bodily for it, the same Holy spirit that left Adam when he sinned.
    the problem with most people is they dont understand the word translated christ can mean King, prophet or priest that also were all anointed. Jesus was born with the right to be called the King of Israel because He would sit in the throne of his bloodline father David.

    BTW
    The very first christians also held the same view as me and many others and were called heretics by the paganized early church fathers who made Jesus a God.

  117. on 22 Jul 2010 at 12:24 pmJim Butler

    Hi Robert,

    You said:

    “Nowhere does it state Jesus was concieved without a human father, it just states that the power of the Holy spirit caused the conception without intercourse.”

    My reply:

    I don’t necessarily have a disagreement with your point. I don’t know the “logistics” of how Christ was conceived. But your comment says the power of the Holy spirit caused the conception without intercourse. I take from that statement you believe God took Joseph’s DNA and impregnated Mary with that.

    I try hard not to ignore clear truths and make up others.

    Jim

  118. on 22 Jul 2010 at 12:36 pmrobert

    “I try hard not to ignore clear truths and make up others.”

    Jim
    I am not accussing you of that, I am saying that tradition has done that. We should always test to see if tradition is truly biblical.
    I see you have done that on the subject of this thread.
    This is what i see when i read these passages and is driven by need to prove and reprove my beliefs.
    I dont believe this is a salvation issue either way and is up to what you see. Neither of us may be right or wrong.
    I just like to share what i see and want to understand what others see.

  119. on 22 Jul 2010 at 3:36 pmDavid

    Thomas,

    Thank you for your encouragement. We must not let let the “left-handed” words of judgement or condemnation allow ourselves to to return curse for curse… that is to curse and blaspheme the holy spirit which resides in our human “temple”. To do so is to unbind the left-hand (think Tefellin), with the Shema when Torah is not practiced from the heart, outward.

    Because we have Torah to love on the inside going out, we have bound our judgement by not following the G-d of this world, judging and accusing the righteous through words of cursing to quench their spirit, but rather we are excessing “right-handed” words and actions by speaking blessing and grace from the Torah of Love in our hearts. 🙂

    As the Kabbalists say, the left hand pushes away, the right hand draws near. It is the Satan and accuser that sits on the left-hand of G-d and judges and condems, it is our L-rd Moshiach who sits on the right hand and only blesses and redeems.

    Each deed returned measure-for-measure. Satan only Curses, and Moshaich only Blesses with enduring mercy. Until this battle is won within our own personal temple/body/earth, and Messiah is put on our own throne, we cannot choose which side of the larger battle we belong to.

    He does not know what he is doing… We must not judge and sling accusations and condemnation upon other men, for that is to blaspheme the holy spirit within them, and that is always punished “measure-for-measure”.

    So let us pray for our enemies so that they leave the bondage of Satan who sits on the thrown of their heart casting judgement and puffing the ego, and enter into the kingdom of our father who forgives much, and sees no fault in us.

    🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w1Va4DqDWs

  120. on 22 Jul 2010 at 5:35 pmDoubting Thomas

    Jim (msg. #115)
    You said, “It would be good to know how you explain what it says in Jer. 17:9.”

    I am far from being an expert on the OT (I’ve only read it completely twice) but I believe Jeremiah is referring to the deceitful hearts of the children of Israel and saying they are desperately wicked. God picked the children of Israel out of all the nations and set them apart, loving them and sending them prophets etc… But the children of Israel turned their hearts away from God, rejecting his love so to speak, and rejecting his prophets.

    This ultimately lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and of course the temple itself. I believe Jeremiah is lamenting the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of the children of Israel. I don’t believe he is saying we should not listen to or trust our hearts to guide us in our day to day lives. Like I said at the end of my msg. #110 “If you are always ignoring your heart and what it’s saying, how can Jesus and his Holy Spirit possibly guide you???”

    Of course like I said, I am not an expert and these are just my own personal opinions…

    David

    You said, “So let us pray for our enemies so that they leave the bondage of Satan who sits on the thrown of their hearts casting judgment and puffing the ego, and enter into the kingdom of our father who forgives much, and sees no fault in us.”

    I agree completely. Yeshua/Jesus repeatedly taught that we should not judge lest we be judged.

    BTW – I checked out the video in your last message and I didn’t really enjoy it very much. I like music where I can understand the lyrics and to be quite honest I could only pick out a few words here and there of what it was he was saying. Thanks anywaze, I appreciate the thought…

  121. on 22 Jul 2010 at 5:39 pmDavid

    Thomas,

    Well, in that case if I see anything that I think you might enjoy, I’ll send it your way. 🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ7N2ExGMU0

    Like this… Ya gotta watch the whole thing though. See if you catch the metaphor. 🙂 This is one of my favorite games.

  122. on 22 Jul 2010 at 6:09 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I think I might of caught the metaphor. I’m not sure. To be honest I never liked playing video games. My son Jordan is just like his mother and loves playing video games. He is always telling me about new games that have come out and which ones he wants to buy. I don’t really see the point of spending so much time playing video games, but at least it keeps him busy and happy and he doesn’t smoke or do drugs.

    I guess I’m just old and out of date when it comes to these things….

  123. on 22 Jul 2010 at 7:15 pmDavid

    It’s basically this very eccentric kind of cult classic game where this TINY little guy rolls this ball around collecting people and things and whatever, while trying to create the cosmos.

    The tiny guy is this Prince of the cosmos that rolls everyone up on this planet, and in the end they are on a new planet all saying “thanks to the king” & “thanks for the planet!” and there is a castle and a rainbow and everybody is hanging out having a party. Then the King who is big, takes the sun and rolls up the other people that didn’t get rolled in and throws them into outer space with the sun, while this song is singing about love and that it is not good to try to be too big.

    It’s metaphors like that and like StarWars or the Matrix and stuff like that where you see this light/dark life/death salvation/damnation kind of motif based upon which side is chosen.. there’s always some messiah and anti-messiah component.

  124. on 22 Jul 2010 at 8:38 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I now understand the metaphor. I also liked Star Wars and the Matrix and noticed the messiah metaphor in them. I think it would be good if we wandered back on topic though.

    “Is the Mosaic law relevant to any Christians?” I think the answer is yes. It is relevant to the Jewish Christians both of today and of the time of Peter and the Apostles. There is nothing in the decision at the council of Jerusalem that said the Mosaic law would no longer apply to the Jewish Christians.

    I think it is clear that the removal of the Mosaic law and the addition of the modified form of Noah’s law agreed to, was just to be applicable to the Gentile Christians. There is some debate about whether this was just a temporary measure to avoid confrontations between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians or if it was meant to be a permanent arrangement.

    I see no reason to believe that it was not meant to be permanent arrangement. I also believe the 10 Commandments were considered separate from the 613 Mosaic laws that were being removed because they were thought to be a burden to the Gentiles.

    In Acts 15:10 Peter says, “…Why are you putting God to the test by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?”

    It baffles me how people can think that in this statement Peter is referring to the 10 Commandments. Certainly it was not the 10 Commandments that was a yoke that neither they or their fathers could bear. I think it was obvious Peter and the others were talking about the 613 laws contained in the Old Mosaic Covenant that God had made with the people of Israel.

    I know I’m just a layman with limited knowledge, but that’s how I see it anywaze…

  125. on 22 Jul 2010 at 8:59 pmMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    As I get time I am responding to each of the Scriptures you’ve cited that seem to teach against the Torah (in your understanding). Hopefully you will take the time to diligently consider an alternate understanding of the text which harmonizes with the foundation of the Tanak.

    ROMANS 14:14

    This passage is sometimes used by others to promote eating unclean animals under the New Covenant. I do not believe such can be proved from the text at all, that is, unless one removes this one verse from Romans 14 completely out of its original context and setting.

    Romans 14:1 begins by contrasting the weak and the strong brother. The stronger brother is to accept the weaker, but not for the sake of arguing about secondary issues. Paul’s use of weaker brother here is echoing his use of the same verbage in 1 Corinthians 8:7-12. In both contexts he is dealing with brethren who are not inclined to eat meat out of fear that it has been offered to an idol. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians that idols are nothing and therefore one may eat meat and ask no questions about whether or not the meat had been sacrificed to an idol.

    This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 14 as well. The stronger brother eats all things (veggies and meat) while the weaker brother eats only veggies (Rom. 14:2). The “all things” mentioned here should not be looked at as including all things in the sense of dogs, cats, poisonous creatures, etc. Rather it is understood as meat on top of a veggie diet. The stronger brother realizes that in and of itself and idol is nothing, so therefore he eats asking no questions.

    This understading filters down to verse 14 where Paul states that nothing is common of itself. Most translations will read here that “nothing is unclean of itself,” but that is not the most accurate translation from the Greek. It would be better to translate this Greek word as “common” as is done in Acts 10 and 11 where Peter explains that he’s never eaten anything common or unclean. Peter uses two different Greek words for two different categories of animals. Something common does not necessarily mean it is unclean.

    What Paul is saying in Romans 14:14 is that he is persuaded by the Lord Yeshua that there is no clean animal common of itself, but if a person esteems such a clean animal to be common, then to them (because they fear it’s been sacrificed to an idol) it is common- but not to everyone.

    The text doesn’t have anything to do at all with the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deut. 14, but people come to the text with a presupposition that this is what is being talked about without seriously considering the context of the chapter.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  126. on 22 Jul 2010 at 9:40 pmrobert

    “It baffles me how people can think that in this statement Peter is referring to the 10 Commandments. Certainly it was not the 10 Commandments that was a yoke that neither they or their fathers could bear. I think it was obvious Peter and the others were talking about the 613 laws contained in the Old Mosaic Covenant that God had made with the people of Israel.”

    Thomas
    i cant even apply this to mosaic law because even Paul said he was righteous according to mosaic law.
    Philippians 3
    4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

    Sounds like Paul could bear it.

    Luke 1
    5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

    Sounds like Zacharias and Elisabeth could bear it.

    Therefore what they couldnt bear must of been something else like some other law like the ones the jews created, adding over 1500 extra sabbath laws alone. Basically look at all the laws in mosaic and multiply them by 39 to find out just how much burden was added. The jews were trying to apply this to the gentiles. Now i do believe the gentiles heard the law when it was preached to them every sabbath but were never commanded it. Nor do i believe any laws were commanded to receive salvation. but i do believe they were taught the morals of both 10 commandments and the mosaic law in which you will find what seems to be noahide laws. There is no doubt in my mind these basic requirements were to keep the peace during fellowship of the sabbath.as a comprimise.

  127. on 22 Jul 2010 at 10:49 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Matthew,
    You left out Romans 14:20 where Paul says all things are “clean” (katharos) which is the exact opposite of “akathartos” in Lev 11. It is utterly impossible that Paul is enforcing the food laws.

  128. on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:10 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “Therefore what they couldn’t bear must of been something else like some other law like the ones the Jews created, adding over 1500 extra sabbath laws alone.”

    You of course could be right, but I had thought that Peter and the Apostles were like the Ebionites and the Karaite Jews of today in that they only followed the written Mosaic laws and did not follow the other man made (oral) laws that were instituted later on???

    You also said, “There is no doubt in my mind these basic requirements were to keep the peace during fellowship of the Sabbath, as a compromise.”

    I don’t see anything in Acts 15 that says that this was just a temporary compromise. It appears to me to be a binding decision that applies to all Gentile Christians right up to and including us today…

  129. on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:10 pmrobert

    “You left out Romans 14:20 where Paul says all things are “clean” (katharos) which is the exact opposite of “akathartos” in Lev 11. It is utterly impossible that Paul is enforcing the food laws. ”

    Anthony
    Actually the point is that it isnt about food laws at all ,so how does this even apply to subject.
    i dont believe the gentiles are bound by any law for salvation, I only believe the elect of Israel and those that CHOSE to be joined to the same promise of the 1000 years sabbath rest are bound to the Mosaic law.

  130. on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:18 pmXavier

    MJ

    Anthony’s point can be found in any standard biblical commentary or theological treatise:

    Rom. 14:20–21 Paul urges the strong not to destroy God’s work in the weak by eating food that will scandalize the weak. He assures the strong that all food is clean (another indication that Jewish food laws are in view), but even the strong who have no convictions against eating such food fall into sin when others stumble and fall away from Christ upon observing how the strong behave. ESV Study Bible

    James Dun in his The Theology of Paul the Apostle [pp 681-682] adds:

    …the issue focused on Jewish perception of the importance of the traditional food laws and Sabbath…the issue is put beyond reasonable doubt by the talk of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ in 14.20 and 14.14, since the former (katharos) is characteristically Jewish and the latter (koinos) distinctively Jewish terminology…

    [fn. 45: Katharos is clearly the opposite of koinos and again has the issue of clean and unclean foods in view–a regular usage for katharos in scripture, particularly the Torah (Gen 7.2-3, 8; 8.20; Lev 4.12; 6.11; 7.19, etc.).

    Almost certainly, therefore, Paul had in view traditional Jewish sensitives regarding clean and unclean as crucial laws regulating practice at the meal table.

    In summary, Paul echoes Jesus teaching here on clean and unclean foods [Mar 7.15, 19; Lu 11.41].

  131. on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:28 pmrobert

    “You of course could be right, but I had thought that Peter and the Apostles were like the Ebionites and the Karaite Jews of today in that they only followed the written Mosaic laws and did not follow the other man made (oral) laws that were instituted later on???”

    Thomas
    Both Peter and all the apostles were jews by nationality , so the national law of judea would of been something they followed before they were disciples but being with Jesus learned it was not giving by God.

    the 4 requirements did not come from God’s covenant with Noah, all of it comes straight from mosaic law.
    A strangled animal is an animal that stopped breathing on its own(died on its own), no eating blood is commanded several times in mosaic and fornication is addressed several different ways in mosaic and the other is addressed over and over in mosaic.
    These were basic needs to keep the peace so the apostles could teach jew and gentile God’s word together.
    Salvation is based on morals not laws so the main objective is to teach the morals of the law not enforce the law.

  132. on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:04 amXavier

    MJ

    Just one more thing. Jesus utterly disregarded for himself these laws relating to dietary laws or purification. He did not wash His hands before eating, and his disciples followed His example (Mat 15:3-20; Mark 7:6-23).

    Jesus then enunciated the great principle that there is no ceremonial, but only moral and spiritual, uncleanness. Not what goes into a man from hands that touch unclean things defiles the man, but the things that come out of his heart, evil thoughts, hatred, adultery, murder, etc., these defile the man [Mar 7.15, 19; Lu 11.41]. .

    So why do you keep preaching, especially to Gentiles, these things? Do you think yourself holier than Messiah?

  133. on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:11 amrobert

    “He did not wash His hands before eating, and his disciples followed His example (Mat 15:3-20; Mark 7:6-23). ”

    Xavier
    Actually there is no command to do this within mosaic law,
    Jesus was denouncing the oral law.
    You might want to read the mosaic law before trying to explain it.
    You also might take the time to read whats in the oral law so you can understand Jesus’ actions against the oral law of the jews.

  134. on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:37 amXavier

    robert

    Actually there is no command to do this within mosaic law, Jesus was denouncing the oral law.

    Your right in so far Jesus not breaking torah by not washing hands, which was not the point I was making. I said he showed a clear disregard not only to the traditions of the elders/priests, but also specific Torah commandments such as Sabbath [Matt 12; Mark 2; Mark 3; Luke 6; John 5; 7; 9] etc.

    Having said that, Jesus ate with “sinners” [one could even argue non-Jews as well, Mar 2.15-17].

  135. on 23 Jul 2010 at 6:21 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier and Anthony,

    First off to Xavier. I have spent a large amount of space answering each of the Scriptures you cited where you feel that Yeshua and the apostles seem to teach against the Torah. I’ve dealt with passages in the synoptics that speak of the Sabbath, both Matthew 15 and Mark 7, and also Acts 10 and 11 with Peter’s vision. On every instance you fail to involve yourself in serious discussion of the text with me. You are going to have to do more than just repeat your same arguments and make statements about me thinking I’m “holier than the Messiah.” You need to explain why my interpretation of those texts is not accurate – until then you are simply continuing to make a non-reply.

    Next to Anthony (and I guess Xavier too). I had forgotten about talking about Romans 14:20 with Anthony on the telephone before, but thank you for bringing this to my attention again Anthony as I was only dealing with the chapter up to verse 14 in the last post. Which, by the way – remained untouched by either you or Xavier. No one commented on the text that Xavier initially cited which is Romans 14:14. No one commented on the context stemming back from verse 1 and following. Please fellows, if you desire to discuss Scripture then discuss it.

    Romans 14:20 is simple. It falls on the heels of what I explained in the last post. The word clean used in the verse is used in many instances by Paul and other authors in the NT to describe purity and cleanliness without reference to the dietary laws. A quick glance in an Englishman’s concordance will show this.

    So in context Paul is speaking about all foods (both meat and veggies) being pure in spite of being offered to idols, but to the man that eats thinking the idol is something – this man defiles his conscience.

    The dietary laws of Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 are not in the context of Romans 14 in the least bit.

    Also, Xavier, let me remind you once more. Please deal with the posts where I showed my understanding of texts like Luke 6 and Luke 11, Matthew 15 and Mark 7 where you feel that Yeshua was doing away with the Torah. I believe that is the furthest thing from what these texts teach. Never forget that Yeshua told us we shouldn’t even be thinking that he came to abolish the Torah – he said this twice in Matthew 5:17. It is a shame that so many people not only think this today but are putting Torah violation to practice in their life in so many ways.

    Our Messiah was a Jewish, Torah observant man.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  136. on 23 Jul 2010 at 8:01 amrobert

    “I said he showed a clear disregard not only to the traditions of the elders/priests, but also specific Torah commandments such as Sabbath [Matt 12; Mark 2; Mark 3; Luke 6; John 5; 7; 9] etc.”

    Xavier
    I going to repeat this .
    “Jesus was denouncing the oral law.
    You might want to read the mosaic law before trying to explain it.
    You also might take the time to read whats in the oral law so you can understand Jesus’ actions against the oral law of the jews.”

    Jesus in no way disreguarded anything in the Torah because He would of died spiritually that very day just as Adam did.

    I dont know why you wont even try to learn 2nd temple judaism so you can learn to tell oral law apart from the Torah.

  137. on 23 Jul 2010 at 8:39 amXavier

    MJ

    You need to explain why my interpretation of those texts is not accurate – until then you are simply continuing to make a non-reply.

    I thought I did explain, seems we disagree though. Which is fine. I don’t expect to persuade someone like you, or robert for that fact. Reason I even devote much time and effort on posting here is for the benefit of others that might be reading. So they can hopefully see both sides and come to their own conclusions.

    The word clean used in the verse is used in many instances by Paul and other authors in the NT to describe purity and cleanliness without reference to the dietary laws.

    Mainstream biblical exegesis disagress with you MJ. On this particular topic I will agree with the majority consensus regarding Paul’s theme here as referring to Jewish dietary laws.

    Rom. 14:14 Christians are no longer under the old covenant, hence Paul no longer accepts the view that some foods are unclean (cf. Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14).

    Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure echoes Jesus’ teaching (Luke 11:41) and Paul’s earlier writing (Rom. 14:20). In light of the Jewishness of the false teaching and the contexts of the earlier similar teaching by Jesus and Paul, the issue here seems to concern Jewish food laws. The false teachers seem in some way to be concerned with this ritual purity, although they are themselves defiled by their unbelief and sin. ESV Study Bible

    Never forget that Yeshua told us we shouldn’t even be thinking that he came to abolish the Torah – he said this twice in Matthew 5:17.

    Yes, he came to “fulfill/abolish” Torah since no one else could live by it. No one is made righteous before YHWH by Torah alone MJ. I hope we can at least agree on this point? Whoever is of “the faith of Abraham/Jesus” is. This is something Paul reiterates time and time again in some of his letters.

    Gal 3.23 Now before the faith came, we were perpetually guarded under the Law, kept in custody in preparation for the faith that was destined to be revealed (unveiled, disclosed),

    24So that the Law served [to us Jews] as our trainer [our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us] until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith.

    25But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer (the guardian of our childhood).

    26For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith

    robert

    Jesus in no way disreguarded anything in the Torah because He would of died spiritually that very day just as Adam did.

    Did you at least bother to check out those chapters where Jesus is said to have clearly broken the Sabbath? If not, here they are again: Matt 12; Mark 2; Mark 3; Luke 6; John 5; 7; 9

  138. on 23 Jul 2010 at 9:07 amrobert

    “Did you at least bother to check out those chapters where Jesus is said to have clearly broken the Sabbath? If not, here they are again: Matt 12; Mark 2; Mark 3; Luke 6; John 5; 7; 9 ”

    Xavier
    Actually I have done large amounts of research into these to find they dont refer to breaking any torah commands because if they did Jesus fell to temptation and couldnt redeem mankind.
    With the proper research you will also find these passages are dealing with JEWISH ORAL LAW. Your view makes the whole NT writing false unless you make Jesus GOD instead of a human.

  139. on 23 Jul 2010 at 9:29 amXavier

    robert

    With the proper research you will also find these passages are dealing with JEWISH ORAL LAW. Your view makes the whole NT writing false…

    So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him…Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?…

    Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. 15 Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”
    John 5.16; 7.23; 9.14-16

    John 9:14 The belated mention of the Sabbath (cf. 5:9) recalls the earlier Sabbath controversy in John 5. Jesus had kneaded the clay with his saliva to make mud, and kneading dough (and by analogy, clay) was included among the 39 classes of work forbidden on the Sabbath (Mishnah, Shabbat 7.2).

    Jesus’ frequent conflicts with the Jews over the Sabbath suggest that by his coming he is changing the Sabbath requirements (see John 5:17).

  140. on 23 Jul 2010 at 9:52 amrobert

    “was included among the 39 classes of work forbidden on the Sabbath (Mishnah, Shabbat 7.2).”

    Xavier
    This right here shows that you have not done the proper research to understand the difference between the Oral law as written in Mishnah, Shabbat and the Torah that GOD gave to Moses to write.

    The Mishnah, Shabbat is the oral law of the Jews written down in 200 AD but was kept oral for over 500 years before that.

    Till you do the research you will be led false interpretations of Jesus’ actions and obidience.

  141. on 23 Jul 2010 at 9:55 amXavier

    robert

    The Mishnah, Shabbat is the oral law of the Jews written down in 200 AD but was kept oral for over 500 years before that.

    If this came 200 years after Jesus, why were the Jews of his day claiming he broke one of the 10 commandments?

  142. on 23 Jul 2010 at 10:11 amrobert

    Xavier
    It was not written till 200 AD, it existed Orally 500+ years before that, thus the meaning ORAL LAW.
    You do understand that when something is compiled and written it must of pre-existed being wrote down.
    What has you confused is the Jews called them laws but Jesus called them traditions of the elders and men.

  143. on 23 Jul 2010 at 11:27 amXavier

    robert

    Oral laws are based on Torah.

  144. on 23 Jul 2010 at 11:49 amrobert

    “Oral laws are based on Torah. ”

    Xavier
    NO, they are interpretations based on the Torah created to put a hedge around the Torah.
    For example a Sabbath command from the Torah was giving 39 definitions in the oral law. Each of these definitions were to convict you of breaking the Sabbath before you actually broke the command as it was written in the Torah. This created 1521 laws that were not giving by God. Jesus only recognized how it was giving by God and was accussed by oral law definitions by the jews.
    while the meaning behind the creation of the oral laws was good, there was a command by God not to add or take away from his words. The jews of 2nd temple judaism also put these man made traditions over the Words God gave Moses to command them to follow. The correction of this was Jesus first task as we see thru out the gospels.

  145. on 23 Jul 2010 at 2:41 pmDavid

    Xavier,

    You should check out the video “Greek Jesus vs Jewish Yeshua” in #46 above. He’s a Jewish expert (Ex-Orthodox now Kairite) on Dead Sea Scrolls and linguistics it’ll really explain many things about what Jesus was against.

    Why they may be tradition based upon the Torah, in those days (even in places today) they were regarded to supersede Torah, and was even taught by the rabbis thus: “G-d has no authority to interpret Torah, only man does for it is with us and not G-d.” Ouch!

    Washing the Hands is not in the written Torah or the Bible at all. Neither is there anything about feeding yourself when you are hungry. Sabbath was created for us as a DELIGHTFUL party in the world to come, when all is complete. It’s our reward, not our bondage.

    Today, this has been argued away in an almost reverse fashion by the rabbis and it IS understood that Rabbinical Oral Law does not supersede G-d’s laws, but this was clearly not the case 2000 years ago.

    There are countless blessings for man-made traditions, not found anywhere in the written Torah brought by moses which bless G-d for commanding them, when He didn’t ever command them. It was the Pharisees who did. Thus they were blessing themselves and calling themselves “G-d.” They placed a burden of guilt and judgement on the people of Israel by adding an encyclopedia library’s of man made traditions, effectively making G-d’s law of no-effect, and keeping people out of the Kingdom of G-d and keeping them in a world of judgement and external works. They had the keys to the Kingdom and hid it away from the people who needed and wanted it.

    Try the video, it is extremely enlightening in this respect.

    Here is the video:
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/52_gordon.html

  146. on 23 Jul 2010 at 3:12 pmDavid

    …I still have to add (sorry for the flood) that I do not think Mosaic law is applicable today because it was prophesied that it wouldn’t be eventually, and also there is much limiting language that is used in the scriptures when describing it.

    “Jesus said: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Matthew 11:13.”

    “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Romans 10:4.”

    “For if that which is done away [the Old Covenant of Law] was glorious, much more that which remaineth [the New Covenant] is glorious.” 2 Corinthians 3:11.

    “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” [the law]. 2 Corinthians 3:13.”

    The law which Yeshua is referring to as eternal and will not pass away is a continuation and revision of that which was given to moses… as this was his purpose.

    “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
    “when I will make a new covenant
    with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah.

    32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their forefathers
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt [moses],

    because they
    broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to [a] them, [b] ”
    declares the LORD.

    33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
    after that time,” declares the LORD.
    “I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.

    I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.

    34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
    or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
    because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”
    declares the LORD.
    “For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

    If one reads on, G-d starts explaining how this new law is eternal and will never part unless one can some how reverse the laws of nature, or do the eternally impossible.

    Where many people get side-tracked is that they are thinking that Mosaic Law is the only law that is being referred to… but it is not. We know the Law is a two-edged sword. And both are eternal. One is for judgement, the other is for mercy and grace. The former is weaker, and the latter is the stronger and is destined to completely replace the former. The decision on which side we wish to be on is up to us.

    Left hand… right hand… One is governed by external law (thus we are condemned) in that case. The other is governed by laws that are within us… which we are then made free. The former is indication that we are receiving judgement and are not in the kingdom for there is a burden of guilt and not living up to righteousness. The latter is the rule of the kingdom of heaven which carries no burden or weight. It is mercy and grace.

    The law will appear outside, and we will feel guilt if we are “not saved”. We are trying to justify ourselves with our own righteousness, trying to pay our way back in to good graces. Because we are judged, judgement comes out of our mouths.

    If the law is inside us, we will not feel guilt for we “are saved”. We are made innocent by His righteousness, and not ours. Only grace and mercy will come from our mouths.

    By our words and deeds we will be judged as not one word returns to G-d null and void, and HE LIVES IN US.

    There is a clear paradigm shift when one passes through from one side to the other. From light to dark. Both of these are the eternal law. It is double-edged.

    We can “play G-d” and judge others, judge ourselves and complain that people aren’t following the law, as well as teach others to do the same to our own destruction.

    Or we can be G-d’s children who walk under the grace of our Father, judge not, be not judged, for we are innocent in his eyes and not trying to “play G-d”.

    The entire torah is to Love God and Love our Neighbor. If we fall outside of this we are performing the former/left side of the sword of truth (law) if we stay inside this, there is no fault, for we are on the right-side of the sword of truth (law).

    One must understand that both laws are G-d’s eternal law, and there is a dichotomy to it. This is PARAMOUNT to understanding what Yeshua/Jesus was teaching us.

  147. on 23 Jul 2010 at 4:38 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “By our words and deeds we will be judged as not one word returns to G-D null and void, and HE LIVES IN US.”

    I agree completely. Although it is important for us to try to discern the truth out of what is taught to us, we will not be judged by our doctrines or how we might interpret scripture. I believe we will be judged by our words and deeds (actions and behavior). I also believe God lives with-in us and that we can hear him speak to us if we are quiet and still and listen to our hearts.

    Jesus said, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be open, ask and it shall be given.” If you want wisdom ask for wisdom. If you want guidance ask for guidance. I believe that if you are lacking in anything you just have to sincerely and humbly ask God, and because he is your loving and generous father, he will give it to you…

  148. on 23 Jul 2010 at 8:50 pmXavier

    robert

    NO, they are interpretations based on the Torah

    Oral laws are based on Torah.

    Glad we agree…adios. 🙂

  149. on 23 Jul 2010 at 9:02 pmrobert

    Xavier
    If apples are oranges then we agree, You need to deal with the truth on this subject.
    It is very clear
    But if you cant deal with it then we will just agree to disagree to keep the peace.

  150. on 24 Jul 2010 at 2:49 amDavid

    Thomas,

    I agree with you 100%. I too don’t think understanding the path is as important as walking the path as you summed up above. 🙂 I just think that some people don’t understand the importance of putting on grace, forgiveness and mercy daily. By doing so we let the enemy get a foot hold in our lives and accidentally let fly with words of judgment; laying heavy guilt on people.

    I know this once got me to a place where my intentions and heart were all in the right place, but my actions and words against people that hurt me, or that I was offended by weren’t at all in line with it. That’s what I meant about it being a paramount thing to remember. It’s easy for us to claim the grace and forgiveness we’ve received through our Messiah, and then forget to consciously bestow this upon others… like the parable of the Master and the Debtor. This is something that I’m working on in my life…

  151. on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:37 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    You’ve still fail to explain pretty much anything. I’m not being rude, just wondering why you wanted to dialogue when you aren’t going to rebuttal anything I’ve written concerning passages like Galatians 4:10, Luke 6:1-11, Matthew 15, Mark 7, Acts 10-11, and Romans 14:14. I’ve taken the time to dissect each of these passages, and your response is either (1) silence, or (2) just cite the references again as though you’re dealing with my argumentation.

    I know that mainstream commentaries disagree with my understanding on Romans 14:14, but what does this prove? Mainstream commentaries disagree with you on John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:10-11, and the list goes on and on. When did commentaries from the ESV study Bible become a hermeneutic?

    You state concerning Yeshua, “Yes, he came to fulfill/abolish Torah since no one else could live by it.” First off, I’m not exactly sure what you me by saying Yeshua came to “fulfill/abolish” Torah. Yeshua actually said he did NOT come to abolish the Torah, and he said it twice for emphasis in Matthew 5:17. The Hebrew language/culture emphasizes words and/or phrases by repetition such as “Lord, Lord” (Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46) and in Matthew 5:17 Yeshua was making it clear that abolishing the Torah was not his mission.

    Was Yeshua just speaking about himself keeping Torah in that context? Not at all, the surrounding context shows that he was speaking about others following his example in Torah keeping. The verse just before (Mt. 5:16) speaks of believers letting THEIR light shine so that others may see THEIR good works. Matthew 5:19 follows with Yeshua telling believers that if THEY break the least of the commandments and teach others to do so THEY will be called least in the kingdom. Yeshua’s proclamation of not coming to abolish the Torah, but rather to fulfill is in the context of teaching his disciples to fulfill the Torah as well.

    You state, “No one is made righteous before YHWH by the Torah alone.” I don’t believe a person is made righteous by the Torah at all Xavier. I believe in the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. I believe that not only does Christ bear our sins in his body on the cross, but his righteousness is imputed to our account. The question then is whether we are in Christ or out of Christ. Justification by faith is taught all through the Tanak – it is not something new in the Pauline epistles.

    The problem is that people take the doctrine of justification by faith and abuse it to disregard Torah. I believe they are doing what Jude calls (1:4) turning the grace of our God into licentiousness. Although the Torah has never been in the means to justification it has always been the guideline for believers in Yahweh and His Messiah. Yahweh has instructed us in the way we should live our lives in His Torah.

    You stated to Robert – “Did you at least bother to check out those chapters where Jesus is said to have clearly broken the Sabbath? If not, here they are again: Matt 12; Mark 2; Mark 3; Luke 6; John 5; 7; 9.”

    I know that I’ve checked them out meticulously and not one of them teach that Yeshua broke the Sabbath day. I’ve dealt with this to some degree in an earlier response to you on this very thread but you failed to ever respond or rebuttal my points. I’ve taught a couple of lessons on Yeshua’s view of the Sabbath, Xavier. I would like for you to listen to them to see my view point of all these verses if you get the time. You can find them here:

    http://ministersnewcovenant.org/audio.html

    The teachings are #165 and #166

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  152. on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:58 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    I’m trying to work down all the posts and make sure I’ve given a response to everything you have written to me or asked towards me. This is a response to your post #39.

    You spoke of the Covenants, Old and New in this post and I do believe you and I have a completely different understanding when it comes to what the New Covenant is. If we allow the Bible itself to define for us the New Covenant then we will see that it by no means does away with the Torah of Yahweh (i.e. the Torah of Moses).

    Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the prime text here and the definition given for the New Covenant is the laws of Yahweh written upon physical Israel’s heart and mind. Jeremiah spoke to the then living Israelites and told them that a day would come when Yahweh would write His laws upon their (obviously their descendants) hearts and minds. When Jeremiah spoke this word from Yahweh to Israel, what would be the only law they would even think of? It would be none other than the law they lived by at that time. The original setting and context would be that the Law of Yahweh, also called the Law of Moses, would one day be written on the Israelites hearts and minds.

    Therefore, to proclaim, “We are under the New Covenant now!” as though it means we do not have to obey Torah is not in keeping at all with the original prophecy of Jeremiah. The very definition for the New Covenant, has to do with Torah keeping.

    Next, you agree that we must begin with the teachings of Yeshua but not stop with the Gospels. I agree Xavier, but revelation in the New Covenant writings is not going to contradict revelation in the Old Covenant writings. You read Paul in a manner that presupposes he has the authority to do away with Torah. I on the other hand read him like a Berean. I look at what he wrote and then examine the Scriptures to see if it be so. Remember, when the Bereans examined Paul by the Scriptures there was no New Covenant writings, only the Tanak. So they were basing their foundation on the Tanak.

    Yeshua made it very plain in Matthew 5:16-19 that we shouldn’t even think his mission was to abolish the Torah, yet disciples of Yeshua believe that this is exactly what his very first followers did! They read Paul’s writings and proclaim things like, “We don’t have to keep the Sabbath!” or “We are free from obedience to God’s dietary laws!” I read Paul with the understanding that if he is truly a disciple of Yeshua (and I believe he is) he will not contradict Yeshua’s teachings and even more so he will speak according to the law of Moses (Deut. 13:1-5; Isaiah 8:20).

    You quote a passage from Philippians 3 and ask me this: “Why is it a ‘loss’ now if Paul is said to have been faultless based on the righteousness of the law?”

    Paul is expressing his former life as a Pharisee verses his new life as a believe in Yeshua; we might say a Christian. He is saying that before he though that he was so very pious and above everyone else living within what was felt by many to be the strictest sect in the Jewish faith. However, when Paul met Christ for who he really was, he had to acknowledge that he needed a Savior, someone to pay the penalty for even his sins. Being a Pharisee and being circumcised on the 8th day didn’t make Saul of Tarsus righteous – he too like all of us fell short of God’s perfect glory. He realized now that his righteousness was based upon faith in Christ and not upon his performance of any laws. He recognized that even sinning one time eliminated a person from being able to enter the kingdom based upon their own good deeds. This is something we must all recognize least we grow into thinking that somehow we are earning salvation with God by our works rather than by coming to him with an empty hand of faith in His Son.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  153. on 24 Jul 2010 at 6:22 amMatthew Janzen

    Shalom, Brian,

    I’ve just gotten to your post #54! I apologize for not getting to this sooner, but I am just trying to take each one directed towards me in the order they come.

    Brian, I believe Matthew 5:16-19 is a fundamental/foundational text in Scripture. Most people completely ignore it and the next biggest group of people grossly misinterpret it. If we truly believe in Yeshua – and that means we believe his teachings – and we honestly exegete these few verses from his mouth (historically/grammatically) I believe we have no choice but to teach that the Torah is just as valid today as it was thousands of years ago.

    That being said, there are obviously portions of the Torah that are not in activity currently. For starters, there is no temple. We do know that while the temple still stood the followers of Yeshua did not have a problem participating in those ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:15-26). We see this taught by Yeshua in Matthew 5 where right after he gives his dissertation on the Torah (5:16-19) he begins to speak of the three major divisions in the Torah: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In Matthew 5:21-24 he speaks of (1) do not murder (physically or in your mind), (2) the Sanhedrin, which was the supreme council in the Jewish court system with 70 members patterned after the 70 elders of Moses, and (3) offering the gift on the altar before reconciling with your brother. My point is that when Yeshua says not one jot or tittle will pass he is not just speaking of the moral aspect of God’s law. He is speaking of the civil and ceremonial aspects as well.

    Today, we cannot participate in those portions of Torah that involve the temple, but according to the last eight chapters of Ezekiel, they will be established in the future along with the Levitical priesthood. This means they must be currently suspended for reasons that Yahweh alone may be fully aware of.

    You have asked about the feasts and I think you’ve asked a very good question. My answer follows: Nowhere in the Torah does it say that a temple is required to keep the feasts. We see the first Passover celebrated in Egypt and the second one in the wilderness. There was no temple for either of them and neither were kept in either Shiloh or Jerusalem. Secondly, the feasts are not dependant upon the Levitical priesthood. I agree that there are particular laws in the Torah that require things of the priests during the feasts, but those are requirements for the priests and not the non-Levite people. The way I feel currently is that we keep the parts of the feasts found in the Torah that we have the ability to keep. For example, we have the ability to remove yeast from our homes during the feast of unleavened bread so my family does this. We have the ability to not work on the Sabbaths of the feasts and have holy convocations in these Sabbaths, so we do this. The fact that sacrifices were offered each day by the Levite priest at an earlier time in Israel’s history doesn’t remove us from keeping the portions of the feast applicable to us.

    For instance, it wasn’t just the feast days, Sabbaths, and new moons that were sacrificial days during the time the Levite priests were active. The working days were also sacrificial days (see Numbers 28:1-8). Are the working days no longer really working days because the sacrifices are not being offered up on them? I do not think such is the case.

    I believe we need to fulfill any aspect of the Torah that is in our grasp. This would go from anything to keeping the feasts all the way down to wearing fringes on the borders of our garments (Numbers 15:37-41; Deut. 22:12).

    Thank you for the question Brian, I hope my answer helps to clarify rather than muddy up the conversation.

    Matthew

  154. on 24 Jul 2010 at 8:21 amDoubting Thomas

    Mathew Janzen
    I agree with some of what your saying. I too am a Sabbath keeper and I agree with your views in regards to the Sabbath. I am just curious how you reconcile the decision at the Council of Jerusalem and what Peter said in Acts 15:10-11 “…Why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers or we are able to bear? But we believe we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

    Why would Peter and the Apostles and all the church leaders and elders come to a decision that says Gentiles (non-Jews like myself) should not be burdened with the 613 laws of the Mosaic Covenant, that was given to the people of Israel, and that it was enough for us to follow a modified form of Noah’s law, if it is true as you seem to claim that I and other non-Jews should be following the Mosaic law???

    Robert (msg. #131)
    You said, “Salvation is based on morals not laws so the main objective is to teach the morals of the law not enforce the law.”

    That does make a lot of sense. But I still can’t agree with what you are saying about Peter in Acts 15:10 referring to the Oral law and not the written Mosaic law. From what I understand the Ebionites were loyal followers of Yeshua/Jesus and were considered the remaining stump from the leadership of the Jerusalem church after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

    You had told me that the Ebionites did not follow the Oral law and this set them apart from the other Jews of their day. I think it is safe to assume that Peter and the Apostles as the original leaders of the Jerusalem church also didn’t follow the Oral law. I think this is proven by the fact that Yeshua/Jesus repeatedly taught against the traditions of men being taught as if they were the doctrines of God.

    The whole reason behind convening the Council of Jerusalem was because some Christian Jews who were from the Pharisee party were saying that the Gentiles (non-Jews) had to be circumsized. Circumsision was not part of the Oral law but the written Mosaic law. It seems clear to me that the burden of the written Mosaic law was what was lifted off the necks of the Gentiles and instead replaced with a much easier law to follow. The modified Noahide law.

    From what I understand, every Rabbi in the world will tell you that the written Mosaic law is just for Jews and that the law of Noah is for everyone else. Apparently Peter and the Apostles and all the church leaders and elders came to the same conclusion at the Council of Jerusalem. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze.

    Mathew and Robert
    BTW – May you both have a great Sabbath and God Bless…

  155. on 24 Jul 2010 at 10:44 amXavier

    MJ

    When did commentaries from the ESV study Bible become a hermeneutic?

    When most, if not all, biblical commentators/scholars agree on this topic. As for the doctrine of the Trinity and its superlatives, you know as well as I do that their equally divided.

    The question then is whether we are in Christ or out of Christ.

    The question should be, if we adhere to Mosaic Law are we “in Christ or out of Christ”? If we say we are “in Christ” we must adhere to the spiritualized dimension he brings to Torah [cp. Mat 5-7] and accept the New Covenant age inaugurated by Messiah [2Cor 3].

    Therefore, to proclaim, “We are under the New Covenant now!” as though it means we do not have to obey Torah is not in keeping at all with the original prophecy of Jeremiah.

    I am under the Torah of Messiah and not Moses MJ. Clear enough?

    Although the Torah has never been in the means to justification it has always been the guideline for believers in Yahweh and His Messiah.

    So we’re not saved by Torah yet we must follow it to obey? Your distinction between salvation and obedience is just not a feasible one.

    You read Paul in a manner that presupposes he has the authority to do away with Torah.

    Can we agree Paul is not talking on his own account but by the guidance of the Spirit of Christ? AS such, its Jesus in Paul we hear.

    Paul is expressing his former life as a Pharisee verses his new life as a believe in Yeshua.

    Which he counts for NOTHING now. Why?! I’m sorry but you waffle on a little bit on this particular point.

    Lastly, are you going to comment on Anthony and my quotes regarding Rom 14.20?

  156. on 24 Jul 2010 at 10:53 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    I don’t have much time currently, but I’ll respond to your comments later, albeit I still think you are obfuscating the issue tremedously.

    Concerning Romans 14:20 – I already responded.

    Please see post #135

    Matthew

  157. on 24 Jul 2010 at 11:09 amXavier

    MJ

    No worries bro. I know you have a great zeal for God and we are with you 100% on the One God and the Gospel of the coming KOG. I would personally like to commend you on your continuing hard work and dedication to these extremely important topics.

    But we will have to agree to disagree on this particular topic concerning Torah of Moses/Messiah. I honestly hope that someday, in this present age, we can come to fellowship, sit down and discuss these points further. In the love of God of course. ANd in that same spirit I would have no problem at all breaking bread with you and yours.

    God Bless

  158. on 24 Jul 2010 at 12:40 pmrobert

    “The whole reason behind convening the Council of Jerusalem was because some Christian Jews who were from the Pharisee party were saying that the Gentiles (non-Jews) had to be circumsized.”

    Thomas
    The issues of the oral law were thoroughly dealt with by Jesus several times in the gospels. This was for the benefit of the disciples and the followers to see that God did not ordain the oral laws. The oral laws were just laws created for a particular nationality Just as the laws of Canada and the USA were. While both Countries laws have a strong biblical base it would be wrong to force cross loyalty.There might even need to be some ground rules set before a gathering of these 2 countries.
    Like when the national anthems are played. It would be wrong to force a Canadian to be loyal to our anthem but creating a requirement for both countries to be silent during the playing of the anthems would make sure there were no problems during this gathering.
    The oral law of the jews were just citizen requirements of Judaea, just as the Mosaic laws were for Whole Israel. Forcing either of these laws on NonJudaites or NonIsraelites for a gathering to hear the Word of God is what Peter is dealing with and what brought about this compromise. These requirements m must of been even offensive to the Apostles for them to even consider imposing them. Since all of these requirements are found within Mosaic law it still doesnt make them or all the other laws binding or does it make void the importance of the rest of the law that wasnt included. This was done to keep the peace so all could hear the Word of God preached on the Sabbath.
    We should never put nationality requirements on the promise of Salvation to all nationalities which comes after the Sabbath rest promise.

    I wish you a great Sabbath too

  159. on 24 Jul 2010 at 5:19 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “The oral laws were just laws created for a particular nationality just as the laws of Canada and the USA were.”

    I didn’t realize that. Now I’m confused. Does that mean that Peter and the Apostles as members of the state of Israel did follow the oral laws???

    This law thing and all the different laws is more complicated than I thought…

  160. on 24 Jul 2010 at 6:04 pmrobert

    Thomas
    Israel had not existed for over 700 years when Jesus walked the earth. Judaea was only a nation without a land for 500 years before Jesus walked the earth. They formed oral laws to govern their people and these laws were based on interpretaions of Mosaic Law.
    Before the disciples followed Jesus it would be fair to say they followed the oral law if they wanted to be considered a Jew and were misguided by tradition to think salvation would be based on it.
    But as we see in the gospels Jesus corrects this view and upholds only the written torah as it was given to Moses.
    Before Paul was called to be an Apostle he was one of the top leaders in enforcing the oral law. He was taught it was a God ordained law but through the gift of the Holy Spirit he learned it wasnt. While he still remained a jew he knew the oral law was manmade therefore could not effect the promises Abraham received. While most of his preaching was of the promise of grace to all nations ,He also deals with the promise of the Old covenant with the changes made to the sacraficial system but his main calling was to the gentiles teaching them that Jesus’ death also redeemed them allowing them to take part in salvation which some of the jews thought only belong to them.
    This is why Paul preaches just salvation based on the spirit(Morals) of the law and then also preaches the law and the misuse of the oral law.
    This is why we see great people like Matthew and Anthony seeing 2 different messages preached by Paul with both ignoring the facts of the other’s view. While i see Matthew ignoring a lot less than Anthony the fact is they both ignore facts.
    If they could separate the promises to Abraham they wouldnt have to ignore any facts.
    This is what this whole thread is about.

  161. on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:35 pmDavid

    The super cool thing about the law is that it embodies G-d’s perfect ideals for human society, but law does not engender it in men. It actually hampers it. By following Jesus, we can grow in maturity to follow it…

  162. on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mathew
    I just listened to your lessons on “Yeshua’s view of the Sabbath” #165 and #166 from your message #151 above and found it very informative and easy to understand. I learned a lot about the law that I didn’t know before. Thanks for posting it…

    Robert
    You said, “This is why Paul preaches just salvation based on the spirit (Morals) of the law and then preaches the law and the misuse of the oral law.”

    I think I am finally starting to understand your views in regards to Paul’s teachings on the law. I had been rejecting Paul’s teachings in regards to the law because they appeared (to me anywaze) to be contradicting the teachings of Yeshua/Jesus. You have given me a lot to think and pray about. Thanks…

  163. on 24 Jul 2010 at 10:22 pmXavier

    Romans 14:20 is simple. It falls on the heels of what I explained in the last post. The word clean used in the verse is used in many instances by Paul and other authors in the NT to describe purity and cleanliness without reference to the dietary laws. A quick glance in an Englishman’s concordance will show this.

    What is the greek word in the Septuagint for “unclean” foods when it comes to the dietary laws in Lev 11; Deut 14?

  164. on 25 Jul 2010 at 8:43 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier,

    This is a reply to your post #155

    You wrote: “When most, if not all, biblical commentators/scholars agree on this topic. As for the doctrine of the Trinity and its superlatives, you know as well as I do that their equally divided.”

    I reply: I feel that commentaries are good to consult, but we should never base any part of our theology or hermeneutic on commentaries even if all biblical scholars agree on a topic. Also, for the doctrine of the Trinity, it is far from being equal. The overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars and commentators are Trinitarian in theology.

    You wrote: “The question should be, if we adhere to Mosaic Law are we “in Christ or out of Christ”? If we say we are “in Christ” we must adhere to the spiritualized dimension he brings to Torah [cp. Mat 5-7] and accept the New Covenant age inaugurated by Messiah [2Cor 3].”

    I reply: If we adhere to the Mosaic law and believe in Yeshua as the promised Messiah, Son of Yahweh we are in Messiah. Its “both/and” not “either/or.” The word Christian literally means that we follow Christ, and this means that we follow in His footsteps doing the things He did, teaching the things He taught. He obeyed the Law of Moses and taught the Law of Moses. He hearkened to the prophet Malachi (4:4) and remembered the Law of Moses the servant of Yahweh.

    Yeshua in the sermon on the mount didn’t bring forth any new spiritual dimensions to the Torah. He simply affirmed the true meaning that the Torah has always had. He is contrasting his true interpretation with the false interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20). This is why I brought up in an earlier post how that during the 1st century it was common to say that a Rabbi who misinterpreted the law was “abolishing the Torah,” while one who correctly interpreted the law was said to be “fulfilling the Torah.” This makes perfect sense when considering Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5:17 as well as the remainder of Matthew 5 where he gives the true sense of many Laws of Yahweh.

    You wrote: “I am under the Torah of Messiah and not Moses MJ. Clear enough?”

    I reply: I understand what you are saying, but the dichotomy you are trying to create doesn’t exist. The Torah of Messiah is no different than the Torah of Moses. Both are the Torah of Yahweh coming through the agency of Yahweh’s servants, one Moses, greater Yeshua.

    You wrote this line in response to what I said about the New Covenant. When one actually exegetes the text in Jeremiah 31:31-34 concerning the Scriptural definition of the New Covenant they see that the New Covenant is defined as Yahweh’s Law written upon physical Israel’s heart and mind. It’s not some new law being spoken of by Jeremiah.

    You wrote: So we’re not saved by Torah yet we must follow it to obey? Your distinction between salvation and obedience is just not a feasible one.
    I reply: It is because of your dispensational tendencies in this area that you aren’t able to grasp this. No disrespect meant here, just an observation. The Old Covenant saints were saved by grace through faith just as we are today, yet they obeyed Torah out of a love for their Creator and fellow man. That salvation or justification produces the fruit of obedience is a very clear, Scriptural teaching. Paul deals with it heavily in Romans 6 and of course James in James 2. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is not by works, yet Ephesians 2:10 adds that we are His workmanship, created in the Messiah for good works what God prepared ahead of time for us to walk in. It’s not a difficult distinction to make, and it is far, far from being non-feasible.

    You wrote: “Can we agree Paul is not talking on his own account but by the guidance of the Spirit of Christ? AS such, its Jesus in Paul we hear.”

    I reply: Yes, I agree with you, and this means that Paul cannot contradict the teachings of Yeshua. If we are reading Paul in such a way that it blows Yeshua’s teachings “out of the water” then we are reading Paul wrong. Remember that when Peter speaks of those who twist Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15-16) he follows this up by saying that it is the lawless men that do this (2 Peter 3:17).

    You wrote: “Which he [Paul] counts for NOTHING now. Why?! I’m sorry but you waffle on a little bit on this particular point.”

    I reply: I’m not waffling at all here, just rightly dividing the word Xavier. Paul is speaking about the righteousness by which is justified in Philippians 3. He is recognizing that apart from having the righteousness of Christ he would have no part with Yahweh because Yahweh demands an absolute perfect righteousness which Paul nor any of us have.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  165. on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:00 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, “Doubting Thomas” (response to your post #154)

    I will be as brief as possible on my understanding of the Jerusalem Council. I recommend that you get the book titled “Law and Grace” by Todd Bennett for further in depth study. It has an absolutely awesome chapter on the Jerusalem council.

    I see the subject of the council being whether or not a person must be circumcised in order to enter a relationship with Yeshua. I would agree with others that the circumcision being pushed for by the Pharisees probably had many “Oral Torah” strings attached to it, and this too would be an erroneous view of the Pharisees, but the main view is whether or not a person must be circumcised before he enters into a saving relationship with the Messiah. The answer given by the elders is NO, a person can have salvation without first being circumcised.

    What then follows is that the elders give 4 requirements for the Gentiles to begin to practice. These four requirements are all based upon the Torah of Moses, proving that obedience to the law was a good thing, not a bad thing, even for the Gentile believers. The elders aren’t going to say “You don’t have to keep the law,” and then turn right around and give them four laws to obey. The elders simply were telling the Pharisees that they should not put the yoke of sin on the back of the Gentiles, but recognize that they are saved by the grace of Messiah and not by works. No one was ever able to bear such a yoke for we have all sinned and fallen short of Yahweh’s glory.

    After giving the 4 initial laws to the Gentiles, the decision goes on to state that the reason they are only giving the 4 laws is because the Gentiles will hear Moses being read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day to learn the remainder of the Torah – showing that the Gentiles would be keeping the Sabbath and learning the Torah. As they learned the Torah over time they would apply it to their lives and be sanctified progressively.

    I explained this to a friend of mine the other day in this modern fashion: Suppose a drug dealer (and drug doer) comes into church and confesses his sin, repents, is baptized, and Yahweh gives him a new heart. He comes up to me and asks, “Matthew, what do I need to do?” Should I put the whole “kit-and-kaboodle” on him all at once? Not according to the principle taught in Acts 15. I would tell him, “Man you’ve got to quit those drugs and quit selling.” and I would stop there. As he attends church he will learn how to obey the Father in other areas of his life. I would need to be patient with him and give the Spirit time to conform him into the image of the Son of God.

    Please, get the book “Law and Grace” by Todd Bennett – you will not be disappointed.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  166. on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:11 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier, (in response to your post #163)

    Hi, Xavier,

    You wrote: “What is the greek word in the Septuagint for “unclean” foods when it comes to the dietary laws in Lev 11; Deut 14?”

    I reply: The Greek word is “akathartos,” as I’m sure you know. I’m guessing that you’re trying to make the same point as Anthony (whom I respect greatly) and say that because Paul uses the opposite of “akathartos” in Romans 14:20 (katharos) he must be talking about all animals being clean rather than unclean by the Torah of Moses.

    I do not believe such a point is valid. This is because the Greek word “katharos” is used multiple times in the NT, and by Paul, in texts that have absolutely nothing to do with the dietary laws. Anyone can do a search in an Englishman’s concordance or computer program and see that such is the case – it is not difficult.

    Paul has already outlined the subject matter in Romans 14 as being the weaker brother who does not eat meat out of a fear that it’s been offered to an idol. He states in Romans 14:14 that nothing is common in itself, but the person that esteems meat to be common, to them it is common. In Romans 14:20 Paul is simply stating that meat (whether offered to an idol or not) doesn’t destroy the work of God. The meat is clean – even though it’s been offered to an idol. That’s Paul in context.

    To shove the dietary laws into the text is eisegesis rather that exegesis.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  167. on 25 Jul 2010 at 10:00 amRay

    It seems to me that when one uses the law in a lawful manner, he comes to realize that he is not under much of it’s requirements because of Jesus. It seems to me that he learns this by the law as well as by Jesus.

    David was a man under the law and learned about Jesus.

    II Samuel 23:3
    The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me,….

    When God says something, he speaks. God spoke to David. I trust we also have reason to believe the Lord Jesus also spoke to David through the spirit of prophecy.

  168. on 25 Jul 2010 at 12:26 pmXavier

    MJ

    The overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars and commentators are Trinitarian in theology.

    Yes, but they either do not hold a traditional Nicean-Chalcedonian line of argument or they just do not make any sense. Fumbling over their own words. This is not the case when it comes to this topic.

    Its “both/and” not “either/or.”

    You cannot serve 2 masters etc., you know the rest am sure.

    The Torah of Messiah is no different than the Torah of Moses.

    “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you…” (Mat 5.21, 27, 33, 38, 43) are not only lessons pointing towards faulty Jewish interpretations of Torah, but to the specific written commandments as such!

    …this means that Paul cannot contradict the teachings of Yeshua.

    How about a continuation of laws pertaining to the New Covenant age?

    Paul has already outlined the subject matter in Romans 14 as being the weaker brother who does not eat meat out of a fear that it’s been offered to an idol.

    I think you might be confusing this with 1Cor 8 where the context is food offered to idols. There is nothing as far as I can see to attest to that here in Rom 14. It all sounds like dietary laws pertaining to Jewish customs, as well as the Sabbath [v.5].

    Rom. 14:5 The weak thought some days were more important than others. Given the Jewish background here (see v. 14), the day that is supremely in view is certainly the Sabbath.

    The strong think every day is the same. Both views are permissible. Each person must follow his own conscience.

    What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one’s personal conviction.

    Unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1–17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the “ceremonial laws” of the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the laws about sacrifices, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers (see also Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16–17). ESV Study Bible

  169. on 25 Jul 2010 at 8:14 pmRay

    I looked up the word “forever” in my dictionary and under that word there are two meanings listed. One meaning means
    “for eternity” and the other meaning does not.

    I’ve often found the importance of finding the correct meaning of a word.

    Could it be that God did not intend for some things to be done for eternity, or for always; enlessly, but rather for at all times or always, while not giving out the meaning of eternity?

  170. on 25 Jul 2010 at 8:36 pmXavier

    Ray

    Great point. If I may add Vines Topical Bible definition of the word oftentimes translated as “eternal”, aionos:

    “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2…The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT…may be seen in 2 Cor. 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., ‘for a season,’ and in Philem. 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun.

  171. on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:24 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Matthew,
    You said:

    There is a clear contrast drawn in 1 Cor 9.20-21 between being under Jewish law – which Paul says he is not – and being under the law of Christ – which he is.

    In Eph. 2.15 (“abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances”) please explain what law Jesus abolished?

    That there was a change in Torah is also expressed by Heb. 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
    You seem to say that a change of Torah is not possible.

  172. on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:27 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Matthew,
    You said: “The Torah of Messiah is no different than the Torah of Moses.”

    There is a clear contrast drawn in 1 Cor 9.20-21 between being under Jewish law – which Paul says he is not – and being under the law of Christ – which he is.

    In Eph. 2.15 (”abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances”) please explain what law Jesus abolished?

    That there was a change in Torah is also expressed by Heb. 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
    You seem to say that a change of Torah is not possible.

  173. on 25 Jul 2010 at 9:43 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I was looking back over the thread and noticed I didn’t answer your message #150 above. You said, “I just think that some people don’t understand the importance of putting on grace, forgiveness and mercy daily….It’s easy for us to claim the grace and forgiveness of our Messiah, and then forget to consciously bestow this upon others…like the parable of the Master and the Debtor…”

    I agree 100%!! I’m just curious. What is your opinion on this discussion I am having with Robert and Mathew above???

  174. on 26 Jul 2010 at 1:08 amDavid

    Thomas,

    I like to look at the law as thus, and also believe Paul explains it this way.

    The law is a good and righteous thing as it embodies the perfect will and ideals of God. However, no man is ever justified or saved by the law, and the law itself produces a crushing weight on the soul in the form of self-judgement.

    “Thou Shalts and Thous Shalt Nots” have the uncanny effect of causing those who study them to actually do the opposite. Laws insight rebellion. You probably know this from your experience as a parent of grown children.

    Laws crush the soul with a burden of guilt when broken. The poor observer then is stuck in an endless cycle of following and breaking laws, attempting to “buy” their own way back to God by their own works of righteousness.

    Grace, allows a different thing to take place. It enables and uplifts the receiver to grow and eventually come to a place where they can start to follow any laws. It takes the burden of failure and judgment away, and instead replaces it with a feeling of optimism. Knowing that God doesn’t judge us, but loves us unconditionally and has sent an example for us (Jesus) to follow.

    Laws carry judgments and this pushes anyone away, unequivocally. If one makes enough ultimatums and mandates, it is natural that it incites rebellion. Since it causes self-judgment, it also causes us to judge others out of defensiveness. This makes it nigh impossible to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It then makes us almost automatically “Do unto others as they do to us.” We then stay in a perpetual state of judging one another, to our death. Only God is the Judge.

    Now, what Jesus did was become this law manifest in a human… instead of a “list” of things showing us what to do, we have a human who can show us his way’s in compassion. In my personal “temple” I have my own set of personal laws that govern my space. My wife does too. One of her laws is… “Thou shalt not sneak bites of food off of my plate!”. She teaches me this law by exemplifying it, never touching my food. If I transgress it, she lets me know. “Thou shalt chat with thy wife, and give her many kisses.”… she teaches me this law through example, always trying to teach me by practicing this herself.

    Law is good, as it is a manifestation of God’s will, but it’s a list of stuff. It is also good because the law, the prophets and the writings foretell the coming of Messiah. But the law in itself, is a crushing weight, that bears a curse to those who break it.

    Jesus, the law made flesh teaches us righteousness by example with no judgment, thus making it possible to eventually “get it all” through time with Love and Patience.

    We can follow the law externally, but that route guarantees a high failure rate and subsequent judgment. We can follow Jesus, which guarantees forgiveness of failure, with no self-judgment or concept of God hating us or damning us. This enables us to walk and grow in God without judging ourselves and others.

    If all sins are forgivable except “blaspheme” of the holy spirit. Then it would be best to walk in Grace. If the holy spirit dwells in a man, then walking under the burden of law enables us to speak curses against people.

    Now is this an unforgivable sin in the sense that we do it once we are screwed for eternity? No. It’s eternally unforgivable as in that law will always be (for eternity) a punishable thing.

    Thus, being under the law requires us to judge ourselves, and others, and to do the unforgivable.

    Being under grace (which is what Paul is discussing) enables us to actually not feel the guilt, not pass the guilt, and stay healthy. It helps us to actually do the law without quenching the spirit in someone, through our words, or through deeds such as execution, violence, or other….

    The validity of Mosaic law, is still a question to be pondered, however it is now a moot point. We cannot follow it by trying to because it will be broken by our own actions and words.

    By not trying to follow it, and instead walking in grace and not judgment of ourselves we have an exponentially higher chance of success of actually hitting the mark. By receiving grace, forgiveness and mercy, we actually enable and encourage people psychologically to move in the correct direction.

    “Left hand pushes away from God, right hand draws near to God…”

    I hope that made sense… I know the concept of Law/Grace can sometimes be a “hot ice-cubes” type of question.

    Think on it… tree of life vs. tree of the knowledge of good/bad” (law)… one has to become ignorant of the law so to speak in order to follow it. One has to become like “little children”. Once we eat the fruit of that tree… like the serpent said “Your eyes will be opened and we will become like God” … yes it was true… That tree of law is “God/Dad’s” tree and only He is to eat of it because only He can judge. If we eat that fruit and want to be like an adult, we’ll get treated like adults, and charged as adults… punished to the full extent of the law.

    Yes, that’s a mind job, I know… 🙂

  175. on 26 Jul 2010 at 1:42 amrobert

    “In Eph. 2.15 (”abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances”) please explain what law Jesus abolished?”

    Anthony
    If you were to approach this using a little better translation you would find this is speaking of Jesus’ death where it TOTALLY Fulfilled the commandments of the sacraficial laws CONTAINED LET ME RESTATE THAT CONTAINED CONTAINED CONTAINED in the ordinances

  176. on 26 Jul 2010 at 2:06 amDavid

    In addition to the above:

    I highly recommend these sermons/teachings by Robert Morris of Gateway Church on here:

    If I’m not mistaken, it’s available to listen and view online, and is also available on DVD or VHS if you’d like to get a copy.

    http://www.gatewaypeople.com/index.php?action=res_series_details&sid=177

    This spirit filled guy really breaks it down in an easy to understand and engaging series It has been an eye opening teaching and has helped me to supercharge my own messages when added to the mix of what bits and bobs I already knew previously.

    If it’s changed my life, it can change yours. 🙂

  177. on 26 Jul 2010 at 4:06 amXavier

    robert

    Anthony
    If you were to approach this using a little better translation you would find this is speaking of Jesus’ death where it TOTALLY Fulfilled the commandments of the sacraficial laws

    The reference is not specific to “sacraficial laws” only, as you mistate.

    By the way, do you know the Koine Greek or Hebrew for that matter robert? Or are you just relying like most of us on dictionaries and translations?

  178. on 26 Jul 2010 at 7:36 amrobert

    Xavier
    Actually I did it myself. went to several greek scholars who would of had motives to translate it differently also but didnt, and also used the latin.

    Then i put in the true context of the whole plan of God.
    This doesnt effect my understanding either way cause I know the gentile nations were grafted into the promise of salvation by the death of Jesus by several passages in the NT and in the OT prophets. so even without this passage I understand.

    I dont care how learned someone is because if they are led by their beliefs they will be blind to the truth unaware.

  179. on 26 Jul 2010 at 9:35 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier (response to your post #168)

    Hi, Xavier,

    You wrote: “Yes, but they either do not hold a traditional Nicean-Chalcedonian line of argument or they just do not make any sense. Fumbling over their own words. This is not the case when it comes to this topic.”

    I reply: Your last sentence is just a matter of perception. I believe there is just as much “fumbling” when it comes to the topic of the Torah by commentators as there is with the Trinity. The fact of the matter is this: we should not use the ESV study Bible or any other study Bible as our hermeneutic. Sure, they can be consulted and even be correct in their understanding at times, but to quote commentaries as though it proves one position on an interpretation of Scripture is not wise.

    You wrote: “You cannot serve 2 masters etc., you know the rest am sure.”

    I reply: The verse you cite is found in Matthew 6 which has absolutely zero to do with the subject we are discussing. The “two masters verse” is dealing with a person who tries to serve both God and money – and you use it here on me because I say that we can be devoted to the Torah of Moses (Torah of Yahweh) and Yeshua at the same time??? Very astounding to say the least. Were the Jewish believers who were all zealous for the Torah of Moses serving two masters in Acts 21:20?

    What you have done in this last post is what you have been doing this whole discussion. I have taken the time to explain thoroughly each of the Scriptures you’ve referenced, and every time you either ignore what I’ve said, rebuttal with a one or two “liner,” or just re-cite the verse again as though it rebuts my statements. Xavier, if you are planning on ever helping me out of my error, you are going to have to exegete texts of Scripture much better than you’ve been doing. Let me assure you that I am not trying to be rude towards you, you seem like a very nice person, but the way that you are discussing isn’t going to convince any Torah keepers.

    You wrote: “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you…” (Mat 5.21, 27, 33, 38, 43) are not only lessons pointing towards faulty Jewish interpretations of Torah, but to the specific written commandments as such!”

    I reply: I disagree. Yeshua just made the statement that he didn’t come to abolish the Torah but rather to fulfill. He just said that heaven and earth would pass away before one jot or tittle would pass from the law. He commented further that because of this whosoever of his listeners broke even the least of the commandments and taught others to do so would be least in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:17-19). He concludes by saying that our righteousness must surpass the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20). This shows that he is about to contrast their interpretation of the Torah with his own.

    In Matthew 5 there is no new law that Yeshua introduces – at all. When he says, “You have heard that it’s been said,” and then quotes a Scripture like “Thou shalt not kill,” the understanding is that the Pharisees would quote the Scripture (in this case the 6th commandment) but abuse how the commandment should be followed. For example, the Pharisees would say, “Thou shalt not kill,” and would obey the letter of the law which was good. However they missed the deeper, spiritual intent of the Torah that teaches one should not bear hatred in his heart and slay others with his words. This was all taught in the Torah of Moses (Lev. 19:18; Prov. 18:21).

    The Devil even quoted Scripture (Mt. 4:5-6) but he quoted it to suit his means rather than quoting it correctly, thus in context.

    I had written: “…this means that Paul cannot contradict the teachings of Yeshua.”

    To which you replied: “How about a continuation of laws pertaining to the New Covenant age?”

    I reply: Paul does not have the authority to go beyond the teachings of Yeshua. This is why I brought up that it’s the lawless men that twist Paul’s writings to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-17). The Bereans understood this because as they heard Paul teach they would examine his teachings by the Tanak – the only Scriptures in existence at that time (Acts 17:10-11). They knew that someone who taught contrary to the Torah had no light in them (Isaiah 8:20). Paul was a Torah observant follower of Yeshua (Acts 21:24).

    You wrote: “I think you might be confusing this with 1Cor 8 where the context is food offered to idols. There is nothing as far as I can see to attest to that here in Rom 14. It all sounds like dietary laws pertaining to Jewish customs, as well as the Sabbath [v.5].”

    I reply: This is why in an earlier post I took the time to explain Paul’s use of “weaker” brother in Romans 14, specifically beginning at verse 2. Paul explains here that the weaker brother only eats vegetables. When we examine Paul’s (same author) use of weaker brother in another epistle of his (namely 1 Cor. 8) we see that this weaker brother must be eating only vegetables out of fear that the meat may have been offered to an idol. This is why Paul uses the Greek term for “common” in Romans 14:14 wrongly translated “unclean” by some translations. Paul was saying that no meat (clean animal) is common in and of itself, but to the one who esteems it as common, to him it is common.

    Concerning the days mentioned in Romans 14 there isn’t even a hint that the Sabbath, Feasts, and New Moons are under discussion. Pure eisegesis again because of a pre-conceived position that the Torah is abolished under the New Covenant. The most likely understanding is that it is talking about observing certain “fasting days.” Romans 14:5 says that one person considers one day to be above another while someone else considers every day to be the same. Verse 6 expounds further by saying, “Whoever observes the day, observes it to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord since he gives thanks to God, and whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God.” Notice how those contrasting are like this:

    (A) One person observes the day to the Lord

    (B) The other person eats to the Lord and gives thanks.

    This entire chapter has nothing to do with observance to the Torah, but rather to non-essential practices that may differ from one believer to another. The Torah never commands a person to be a vegetarian or abstain from wine (Rom. 14:21). This all had to do with personal preferences.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  180. on 26 Jul 2010 at 9:59 amXavier

    MJ

    we should not use the ESV study Bible or any other study Bible as our hermeneutic.

    As long as they do not agree with your point of view I guess. I consult them even when it comes to the Trinity so I can test their conclusions against scripture.

    Were the Jewish believers who were all zealous for the Torah of Moses serving two masters in Acts 21:20?

    Yes they were. Hence the apostolic question that follows: “What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.” Which later leads to Paul trying to please both groups of believers: Judaizers and Christians alike. This also reminds me of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, when Peter was taking a hypocrital stance because he was trying to please both parties!

    …but the way that you are discussing isn’t going to convince any Torah keepers.

    I am trying to keep my posts as brief as possible. Don’t want to flood it, like some people. If Anthony wasn’t able to persuade you I doubt I will be able to. Like I said before, doing this more for the benefit of other readers.

    This shows that he is about to contrast their interpretation of the Torah with his own.

    What Paul later says is a result of that. Or are you telling me that Messiah simply mouths what was already stated as Torah?

    Paul does not have the authority to go beyond the teachings of Yeshua.

    He wrote whole letters clearly teaching against Sabbath, circumcision etc., all with the authority that Messiah commisioned him with on the road to Damascus.

    Paul was a Torah observant follower of Yeshua (Acts 21:24).

    So let me get this straight. The Jerusalem church orders Paul to perform a Torah based ritual; so why don’t they send orders to the Gentiles to observe those very same laws? Instead, as per the Jerusalem council decision, they are only told to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” [v. 25]

    we see that this weaker brother must be eating only vegetables out of fear that the meat may have been offered to an idol.

    This whole argument goes beyond the written text. Special pleading to say the least!

    Pure eisegesis again because of a pre-conceived position that the Torah is abolished under the New Covenant.

    Pure eisegesis again because of a pre-conceived position that the Torah is still to be observed under the Old Covenant. 🙂

  181. on 26 Jul 2010 at 4:59 pmrobert

    I want to say this subject has been beaten to death over the last 2000 years. Many have died over it.
    While both groups are right within a certain calling they are both wrong because neither can separate the physical promise from the spiritual promise. Neither promises can be made void because God couldnt swear by anything greater then HIMSELF.
    Just because there was a few changes made doesnt make it null and void because the changes that were made were just bringing in the actual figures that were casting the shadows. Yes Jesus broke down barriers that made the Israelite and the gentile one but that is contained in the spiritual promise of all nation being blessed.
    But hell or high water those promised the physical will received their reward for their scrict obidience to the requirements set forth by GOD for this separate promise to Abraham.

  182. on 26 Jul 2010 at 5:22 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    I hope you don’t mind me commenting here. You said, “He wrote whole letters clearly teaching against Sabbath, circumcision etc.., all with the authority that Messiah commisioned him with on the road to Damascus.”

    From what I understand after the incident on the road to Damascus many years passed (close to a decade) before Paul finally showed up in Jerusalem to meet with the church leaders. Even then Peter and the Apostles refused to meet with him. Barnabas felt compassion towards him and took Paul under his wing to teach him the basics about Christianity (at this point many years after Damascus Paul was still completely ignorant of Jesus and his teachings/message).

    I do not understand how people can interpret the events in Acts in some way as to imply that Paul was commisioned and given some sort of special authority by Yeshua/Jesus on the road to Damascus. From what I understand Paul was just a young boy when this event happened and he didn’t even become baptized as a Christian until nearly a decade after this event.

    Where does it say in Acts that he was commisioned with some special authority on the road to Damascus??? The fact is Yeshuaw/Jesus was punishing him and trying to get him to change his wicked ways. He was not trying to give him some kind of special authority so he could contradict Peter and the Apostles or Yeshua/Jesus.

    At least that’s the way I understand it…

  183. on 26 Jul 2010 at 9:13 pmXavier

    Doubting

    Even then Peter and the Apostles refused to meet with him. Barnabas felt compassion towards him and took Paul under his wing to teach him the basics about Christianity…

    Why don’t you try reading Acts again and citing some references. I think you are way off.

    Where does it say in Acts that he was commisioned with some special authority on the road to Damascus???

    Where does it say he wasn’t? Scriptural evidence please!

  184. on 26 Jul 2010 at 9:31 pmXavier

    DT

    Since you dismiss the Pauline letters as somehow biased, here’s what the writer of Acts [Luke] has to say:

    “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man [not a boy!] and all the harm he has done to your people in Jerusalem…But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man [not a boy!] is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.

    While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 9; 13.2

  185. on 26 Jul 2010 at 10:43 pmrobert

    Thomas
    Paul was commisioned by Jesus as a tool to bring the promise of salvations to the non-Israeltes. He was chosen wisely because of his background with the oral laws to make sure they were not burdened with the laws of a perversed generation. No one could say he didnt understand the oral law because his whole life was dedicated to learning it. His creditablity allowed for him combat those who taught one must be a jew and follow the laws of a jew to receive salvation.He was led by the Holy spirit to correct the false teachings of the jews when the gentiles joined the lord by Grace. these certain jews went about following his preaching forcing the requirement to be a jew. Making them respect the Sabbath, feast and holy days as the oral law stated. They also force requirements of how food was to be prepared saying it was the only way to know if it was sacraficed to idols when the only important thing about food was how you offered it to God. The actions of others were their own not yours. Paul spent his time as an apostle obidient to the TRUE law that God set forth because he was a part of the physical promise to Abraham and understood that the other promise made to Abraham was one of grace to all loving people of all nations and was not conditional on mosaic law. when people claim that he Preached against the law they do so because they are blinded by deception. Paul was a devout Sabbath keeper, festavil keeper and understood the oral law was not the definition of them.
    the apostle some describe never existed anywhere outside of tradition of later generations.
    Again i want to say this issue is in no way a salvation issue unless you kill,knowingly lie to or hate someone over it.
    I myself will probably only partake in salvation and that only if my morals can match those taught by Jesus.

  186. on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:06 pmDavid

    Here,

    This is an addition/supplemental to what I said about the Tree of Law (Knowledge of Good & Bad) vs. the Tree of Life. Being innocent children, blameless and without blame in our mouths.

    John 9:39-41
    Jesus said, “Because of judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too? Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see (sin), your guilt remains.

    This is why we were told to be like little children, to forgive much, to judge not. If we eat from the tree of law, which is only God’s something happens.

    Just as the serpent always gives half truths: “You’re eyes will be open (see above passage from John) and you will be like God (The Ability to Judge)…. [That was the truth part]

    you shall surely not die!” [That is the lie…]

    Matt: 7:1-5
    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye

    The law is good because it is a test which we can take for ourselves to see how close we are to God because it is a mirror. It is for us to grade, and for God to guide us – and only for God to judge us by in HIS wisdom. But like any tool meant for an adult, when left in a child’s hand it we can be used foolishly; destroying the child and others around him/her.

    We are not to eat from that tree! We are to become as little children, and let our Father alone Judge us by his law… in this sense it is good and it teaches us.

    In all reality, that IS THE FIRST LAW that was given in the Torah to Man, and we saw the consequences of breaking it: Judgement and Death.

    Does G-d shoot judgments from the clouds? Or do these judgments come from the mouths of Human Judges? And if God lives within us then our own words are the word of God… this is why our words have such power of life and death. By breaking this law, we break them all… for any ill word against a man who is the temple of the spirit, is Judgement against the spirit, and that always leads to death.

    This debate is problematic because it causes others to become aware of sin… as Paul said: “I would not be aware of Covetousness if it weren’t for the Law.” By becoming aware of this, we become like many, blind to our own faults, seeing only the faults of others.

    Fault finding in others due to our own subjective understanding of Law is strictly off-limits! The law is there for us to remove specks from our own eyes.

    The entire Law is eternal, but it is for GOD to judge us personally on the inside, lovingly with Grace as a parent does. Not with the vengeance and cruelty of an angry child who knows nothing!

    Can’t we see? I pray this is understood… It is important to understand that we must become like little children… this is an important part of the Gospel message pertaining to entrance to the Kingdom of God… it’s one of the keys that I’m handing over today to anyone who wants it, just as our Messiah handed it to us. We are Christians, it is our job to be the body of Messiah…

  187. on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    Please don’t be angry with my beliefs. This is just my own personal understanding taken from my own studies and of course I could be wrong. Acts 7:58 says, “Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid there garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.”

    From what I understand a Jewish boy was considered to be a man at the young age of 13 and the average life expectancy of Saul’s/Paul’s time was about 35-40 years of age. If Saul/Paul is described as a young man it probably meant that he was in his late teens at the oldest.

    When I was about 15 or 16 I thought that I was a man and that anyone over the age of 30 was over the hill. But at my current age I look back and consider anyone in their teens to be still just a young boy. I don’t think it is that far off for me to refer to him as a boy even though by Jewish law and custom every boy over the age of 13 was legally considered to be a man.

    You said, “Why don’t you try reading Acts again and citing some references. I think you are way off.”

    You might be right I thought I had read in one of the many books I’ve read that approx. a decade had past between Damascus and Paul’s arrival at Jerusalem. But I was just rereading Acts and it appears that I was wrong. I don’t see any indication of a large amount of time passing from my reading of Acts. I’m sorry I thought I had read that somewhere.

    You also asked, “Where does it say it wasn’t?”

    I just asked, “Where does it say in Acts that he was commisioned with some special authority on the road to Damascus?”

    I didn’t say that Acts said he wasn’t commisioned with some special authority. I realize Paul claimed to have mystic revelations directly form Jesus telling him he could teach different teachings than Peter and the Apostles. But, I just don’t believe that Paul had any special authority to contradict Yeshua/Jesus or Peter and the Apostles.

    Yeshua hand picked the 11 Apostles and Peter and the Apostles though prayer and asking for guidance picked Mathius to be the 12th. Apostle. From what I understand there was suppose to be one Apostle for each of the tribes of Israel. Why would Jesus later change his mind and suddenly decide he needed 13 Apostles???

    Why at the beginning of Galatians does Paul in his own words say, (ESV) “Paul, an Apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” or (NIV) “Paul, an Apostle – not sent from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.”

    In other words Paul is saying that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders did not appoint him as an Apostle. In other words Paul is a self appointed Apostle. I think you can understand why I believe that a self appointed Apostle would not have the authority to contradict Yeshua/Jesus and his hand picked representatives who were clearly the leaders of the church, Peter and the Apostles…

  188. on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “Paul spent his time as an Apostle obedient to the TRUE law that God set forth because he was part of the physical promise to Abraham and understood that the other promise made to Abraham was one of grace to all loving people of all nations and was not conditional on Mosaic law. When people claimed that he preached against the law they do so because they are blinded by deception.”

    Like I’ve said many times before. I do not consider myself to be an expert or a teacher. I am just a student of Christ exploring/sharing my beliefs with others and listening to the feedback. If I keep my beliefs to myself I can’t test them to find out if they are true or not. I hope I’m not offending anyone with my beliefs. I try not to be close minded on these things.

    It has taken more than 6 months but I am finally beginning to see and understand what you are saying about Paul and his teachings on the law. I had thought that he was contradicting what Yeshua/Jesus taught and what Peter and the Apostles taught. I’ve been thinking and praying about this since yesterday and am coming to realize that I may have been wrong in believing this about Paul.

    Robert what you are saying does seem to make a lot of sense to me…

  189. on 27 Jul 2010 at 12:24 amDavid

    John 5:26
    “But don’t think that is is I who will be your accuser before the Father. Do you know who will accuse you? Moshe, the very one you have counted on! For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it was about me that he wrote. But if you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

    Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The root of all evil is not the love of money. The root of all evil is the first lie that was given by the serpent in the garden…

  190. on 27 Jul 2010 at 12:32 amDavid

    Doubting Thomas,

    I strongly disagree with the interpretation that Yeshua is telling us to follow the Mosaic Law. Your original interpretations of Paul are correct. He is not in contradiction, the Law is good, but all who are under it will die. None are made righteous by it, all are made to be found unrighteous.

    Yeshua taught to obey it for ourselves, not to teach others to do it, via fault-finding and Judgment. We must become blind to the law to see for ourselves. This is why Paul seems to be against it… he’s not against it, but he teaches we are free from it, because we are made righteous by grace. We loose that righteousness (right standing with God) when we decide to teach others their faults because we find them to be breaking the Torah. By that measure we are judged.

    Yeshua came to bruise the serpent’s head. Think on it what I’ve said.

  191. on 27 Jul 2010 at 12:51 amXavier

    DT

    If Saul/Paul is described as a young man it probably meant that he was in his late teens at the oldest.

    By Jewish standards of the time, as according to the Mishna [Avot 5.21], a “young man” was someone 30 or older, an “old man” 60 or older. As per other biblical figures such as David [2Sam 5.4]and Jesus [Luke 3].

    I realize Paul claimed to have mystic revelations directly form Jesus telling him he could teach different teachings than Peter and the Apostles.

    Again can you cite scripture to support this statement? Because the writer of Acts says that when Paul reached the Jerusalem church with Barnabas “they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.” [Acts 15.4]

    Why would Jesus later change his mind and suddenly decide he needed 13 Apostles???

    Paul was commisioned with a similar calling as that of Peter, “apostle to the Gentiles” so the Gospel could be further advanced. Period.

    In other words Paul is saying that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders did not appoint him as an Apostle. In other words Paul is a self appointed Apostle.

    God, through His Son, appointed 12 apostles. Similarly, God through His son commisioned Saul. None of them were appointed by other men but directly by God!

  192. on 27 Jul 2010 at 7:19 amrobert

    Thomas
    We have these discussions for the purpose of reaching the truth,if someone is seaking the truth they will not be offended but might offer what they see.
    As you have said correctly before, it is not doctrine that saves, its who we are according to the morals of God and Jesus.
    It is only natural for people to get defensive when you are comprimising their view.And the best defense is a good offense

  193. on 27 Jul 2010 at 7:52 amrobert

    “I strongly disagree with the interpretation that Yeshua is telling us to follow the Mosaic Law. Your original interpretations of Paul are correct. He is not in contradiction, the Law is good, but all who are under it will die. None are made righteous by it, all are made to be found unrighteous.

    Yeshua taught to obey it for ourselves, not to teach others to do it, via fault-finding and Judgment.”

    David
    I see Jesus stating differently, but to who is he addressing it is the question. This question must be asked of Pauls actions if we want to understand his letters to several diiferent groups.
    I think seeing Jesus’ personal actions very compelling and see Paul personally walking as Jesus did as an Israelite.

    Matthew 5:19
    Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

  194. on 27 Jul 2010 at 2:31 pmDavid

    What about Matthew 5:20….

    “20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    If we read on even further, Yeshua is talking about the severity of the Law itself. If you break one, you break them all and are guilty of a death sentence. Here he goes on to say that even thinking about breaking it is breaking it, and by the law one should be put to death.

    If this is the case, then Yeshua came to Judge us and Condemn us…. obviously that is not the case… seriously think about it.

    Keep reading chapters 6 and 7… keeping what you quoted in 5:19 in context. When in context it doesn’t even mean what you say it means. It sounds like one of Thoma’s Lancaster’s definitions from KotJ which, as smart as it is, is contextually incorrect because it throws away scriptural context in favor of historical… instead of grasping both, we now assume that God sent a redeemer to not redeem but to condemn and keep us yoked.

    We can agree to disagree on this point. There is a lot of verbal back-and-forth going on here already.

  195. on 27 Jul 2010 at 3:02 pmrobert

    “What about Matthew 5:20….”

    David
    I made mention that we need to understand what and who is being addressed. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law claim righteousness came from doing all that was contained in the Oral law but they werent even perfect within their own laws.
    God gave HIS laws to LIVE by and were perfect and just.
    Many before Jesus were righteous in the Mosaic law because if they failed one law they could offer a sacrafice for it. Jesus needed no sacrafice becaue he never failed a single law. This is very important to understand OT sacrafices were just shadows of Jesus’ sacrafice and if he failed ,every sacrafices from Adam to Him would of been made void.
    As far as chapters 6&7 , i see no contradiction with Matt 5 :19 nor do i see any contradiction with any OT or NT writings.
    Matt 5 :19 is so very clear to what Jesus preached to those of the physical promise to Abraham.

    David your understandings are not wrong, they are just being applied to the wrong promise.

  196. on 27 Jul 2010 at 4:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “It is only natural for people to get defensive when you are compromising their view. And the best defense is a good offense.”

    You are of course correct.

    You also said, “As you have said correctly before, it is not doctrine that saves, it’s who we are according to the morals of God and Jesus.”

    You are again correct. It would probably have been better if I didn’t bring up the subject since it so divisive and laced with strong emotions…

    Xavier
    I don’t even know what a Mishna is. From my reading I had thought he was a young man not someone 30 or older. It just doesn’t make any sense to me that in a society where the average life span was less than 40 years old that someone who was 30 or older would be considered a young man. Nothing about Paul makes any sense to me.

    I had said, “I realize Paul claimed to have mystic revelations directly from Jesus telling him he could teach different teachings from Peter and the Apostles.”

    And you said, “Again can you cite scripture to support this statement?”

    Galatians 1:11-12 Paul says, “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me was not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

    You also said, “Similarly God through his son commissioned Saul.”

    I realize that is what all the so called religious experts say but I just don’t see any convincing evidence to support it.

    I think it might be better if we agree to disagree. You have all this confidence in these various experts and what they say, and I by my nature don’t trust the so called experts, and will question anything that doesn’t seem to make sense to me. It is my nature to question authority figures and the so called status quo, and has been since I was a young boy.

    Hence the blogging name Doubting Thomas…

  197. on 27 Jul 2010 at 6:20 pmSilke

    Hello,

    for a few weeks I have been reading articles and comments on this blog. I am really grateful to have found people who believe in the ONE true God without promoting very strange teaching in other important aspects.

    If you have questions concerning my faith or understandig of biblical topics, please, feel free to ask.

    For now, I would like to ask myself a first question, related to some of Robert’s posts (e.g. #195):

    Matt 5 :19 is so very clear to what Jesus preached to those of the physical promise to Abraham.

    As fas as I understood, you are talking about the inheritance of the promised land during the millenium, which you see only for those who are part of the Old Covenant, being expressed by following the Law given through Moses. If that is right, how could Abraham receive this inheritance? He for sure did not follow the Mosaic Law, since that was only given hundreds of years after his death. Neither Abraham, nor his son, grandsons, and some further generations of his descendants would than be included the first resurrection and the live in the promised land.

    Did I get something wrong?

  198. on 27 Jul 2010 at 7:31 pmrobert

    Welcome Silke
    The mosaic law was just a call to separate from other nations, it was a sign of a separate people.
    Abraham recieved the promise for obeying his call to separate from other nations.
    Mosaic law is just an extension of the call to separate to Abraham.

  199. on 27 Jul 2010 at 7:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    David (msg. #190)
    You said, “I strongly disagree with the interpretation that Yeshua is telling us to follow the Mosaic law. Your original interpretations of Paul are correct. He is not in contradiction, the law is good, but all who are under it will die. None are made righteuos by it, all are made to be found unrighteous.”

    I agree completely. I think you must have misunderstood what it was I was saying to Robert. I had been convinced that Paul’s teaching regarding the law were contradicting that of Yeshua/Jesus and Peter and the Apostles. But I’m finally starting to see what Robert has been saying to me since I came on to this site.

    That is that while Paul still remained a Jew he knew the oral law was man made and could not effect the promises made to Abraham. While most of his teaching was about the grace given to all nations (Abrahamic Covenant delivered through Jesus). He also deals with the promise of the Old Covenant (Mosaic) and the changes to the sacraficial systems.

    So when Paul is speaking about the law being abolished maybe he isn’t actually referring to the 10 Commandments but to the Oral Law. This is a definite possibility that has me thinking and praying a lot. I had thought he was contradicting what Yeshua/Jesus said in Mathew 5:19 but I am starting to realize that I might have been mistaken.

    I have been doing a lot of thinking and praying lately. You have said a lot of things that make a lot of sense to me and that I agree with. Mathew has also said a lot of things that make a lot of sense (some of which I agree with). The reason I’ve been thinking and praying so much lately is that I have been feeling a little confused and overwhelmed with all these new ideas, but I think it is a good thing.

    It shows that I am growing and learning more about the teachings of our Messiah and what it is that God is asking from us. I want to thank everybody here for helping me to grow not only in my knowledge but in my relationship with God and his son Yeshua/Jesus…

  200. on 27 Jul 2010 at 8:58 pmMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Anthony, (response to your post #172)

    It is good to see that you are following the discussion a bit! I’m still looking forward to having tea with you and discussing this in person my good friend!

    You wrote: “There is a clear contrast drawn in 1 Cor 9.20-21 between being under Jewish law – which Paul says he is not – and being under the law of Christ – which he is.”

    I reply: Here’s my understanding of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22.

    Verse 19: Paul is not bound to anyone, but he acts as a servant to everyone in hopes of winning more people than not.

    Verse 20: To the Jews Paul became like a Jew. Paul was a Jew himself, so it’s curious here as to why he says he became like a Jew. I take it as meaning he adopted the culture and practice of the Jewish people in order to blend in with them in hopes of them listening to him in a more inquisitive fashion. Then Paul mentions “to those under the law.” I don’t see how “those under the law” are any different from the Jews he just mentioned. He says, he becomes as one under the law, even though he is not one who is under the law. I agree with Paul here who is probably speaking about him being under grace rather than law (Romans 6:14-15). Paul’s statement about not being under the law does not mean that he continues in sin (which is defined in 1 John 3:4 as transgression of the law) but rather that he is not under the law in the sense that those without Messiah are.

    Verse 21: Next Paul mentions those outside the law, and I take this to mean those who are not Jews and are not under the law. This would be non-Israelites or Israelites from the 10 northern tribes that had been divorced by God and scattered among the heathens (Hosea 1). Paul says he becomes like one outside the law but he does not mean that he has disregarded God’s law for he states he is under the law to Christ. In other words, he adopts the culture of the those that do not know God but not to the extent of making void God’s law.

    Verse 22: Then Paul mentions becoming weak to those who are weak and concludes by saying that his purpose for becoming all things to all men is in hopes of winning some of them to the faith.

    I do not see anything in these verses Anthony that would lead me to believe that the “law of Christ” is a different law than the “law of Moses.” Paul is simply talking about how he, to the best extent possible, makes an effort to “get on the level” of differing persons.

    You wrote: “In Eph. 2.15 (”abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances”) please explain what law Jesus abolished?”

    I reply: These verses come on the heels of Paul speaking about Gentiles who had been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:11). These Gentiles were strangers to the covenants of promise, they had no hope, and they were without Yahweh. The good news towards these Gentiles was that because of the blood of Yeshua the Messiah they could be brought into a relationship with the Father, and likewise into a relationship with those currently in believing Israel.

    Yeshua is said to be the peace that brings both groups (Gentile and Jew) into one. Yeshua tears down the dividing wall of hostility between the two (Eph. 2:13-14). Notice carefully that it is the dividing wall of hostility that is tore down, which some translations refer to as enmity. This is confirmed in verse 16 where once again it is the enmity that is said to be slain or put to death.

    Verse 15 identifies this enmity or hostility as the “law of commandments contained in ordinaces.” Many people today believe this teaches the Torah has been abolished. I do believe that the Torah is what is in view here, but is the text teaching that the Torah is abolished in the sense that it should no longer be obeyed? Such is hardly the case.

    When a man sins against Yahweh, he incurs a debt to Yahweh. Yeshua refers to sin as debt in the famous prayer found in Matthew 6 where he teaches to pray, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” These Gentiles had broken the law of commandments contained in ordinances and thus had acquired a debt that they could not pay themselves. Thus the law of commandments was like a dividing wall between them and those in believing Israel. Only the blood of Yeshua was able to wipe the debt away seeing he paid the penalty for breaking the law of commandments contained in ordinances in His death on the cross, slaying the hostility that existed. This made it possible for these Gentiles to be joined together with those who were already in believing Israel, making one new man out of the two groups (Eph. 2:15b).

    This is recognized even further by noticing the parallel passage of Colossians 2:14. The book of Ephesians when read side by side with Colossians is extremely similar and parallel in nature. Colossians 2:14 is undoubtedly referring to a debt of sin against the Torah being blotted out by mentioning the Greek term cheirographon (handwriting) and telling us that this is what was nailed to the cross. This is where we get the practice of the receipt spike still seen in many fast food restaurants today. Once you pay the employee of the restaurant the money you owe them, they take your bill and stick it over the spike which states in a manner that the bill is destroyed because it has been paid. Yeshua nailed a spike through our debt owed to Yahweh when He in His body on the cross took our sins upon Him self.

    For further study and a detailed explanation of Colossians 2:14-17 visit:

    http://ministersnewcovenant.org/articles/a-024.pdf

    You wrote: “That there was a change in Torah is also expressed by Heb. 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
    You seem to say that a change of Torah is not possible.”

    I reply: Because of previous revelation in the Tanak like Ezekiel 40-48 and Jeremiah 33:17-22 I do not believe the author of Hebrews is saying that the Torah has been abolished. The prophet Jeremiah clearly says in his prophecy that the Levite ministers and the covenant with David will not be abolished. Ezekiel’s prophecy clearly shows Levitical priests ministering in a physical temple during the millennial Kingdom.

    Hebrews 7:12’s mentioning of a change in the law can be justly translated as a transference in the law. The point the author is making in Hebrews 7 is that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the priesthood of Levi, which of course is not contrary to the Torah for Melchizedek’s priesthood is found even before the Levitical one (Genesis 14). The Levite priesthood has it’s place in God’s plan, but the priesthood of the Messiah – the Melchizedek priesthood – is obviously better when we “weigh the two” so to speak.

    Conclusion: When we read the New Covenant Scriptures with the backdrop of previous revelation (Tanak) we will know that we cannot go beyond the law and the testimony (Isaiah 8:20). The good Berean examines what people say against the backdrop of the Tanak – the only Scriptures the Bereans had to examine in Acts 17:10-11. Yeshua said that if we break even the least of the commandments of Moses and teach others to do so we will be called least in the Kingdom. Anthony, you are very big on the Kingdom message… do you not see how keeping the Torah is tied into being great in the Kingdom???

    Shalom my friend,
    Matthew Janzen

  201. on 27 Jul 2010 at 9:27 pmXavier

    DT

    Nothing about Paul makes any sense to me.

    Nothing at all? That’s too bad. Apostle Peter [if you believe him as well] does say that some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture” [2Pe 3.16].

    I realize that is what all the so called religious experts say but I just don’t see any convincing evidence to support it.

    I wasn’t referring to any “religious experts” as such DT. But what the scope of the NT teaches. All these men are said to have been inspired and commissioned by God either directly or indirectly [through Jesus].

    It is my nature to question authority figures and the so called status quo, and has been since I was a young boy.

    Youyr questioning of the scriptures as such is very unfortunate then DT. Good luck to you.

  202. on 27 Jul 2010 at 9:29 pmMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier, (response to your post #180)

    You wrote: “As long as they do not agree with your point of view I guess. I consult them even when it comes to the Trinity so I can test their conclusions against scripture.”

    I reply: That is not what I am saying at all. I believe commentaries are helpful and I have a variety of them here at my house for examining different perspectives even when they disagree with the conclusions I come to after examining the text myself. So, I really do the same thing as yourself, consulting even the “hostile” ones to the views I hold.

    My point is that most of your responses to my posts have not been exegeting the text and responding to my points. You just snip and paste commentary from the ESV study Bible as though you are discussing. Then you make the point to say that you don’t want to take up too much space on the forum. Well, do you want to discuss the subject or not Xavier? I’m not here discussing to use up “cyber ink,” I believe the subject at hand is of great importance and I would really like to know how you rebut all the explanations of each Scripture that I’ve been giving in response to your citations.

    I had written: “Were the Jewish believers who were all zealous for the Torah of Moses serving two masters in Acts 21:20?”

    To which you replied: “Yes they were. Hence the apostolic question that follows: “What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.” Which later leads to Paul trying to please both groups of believers: Judaizers and Christians alike. This also reminds me of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, when Peter was taking a hypocrital stance because he was trying to please both parties!”

    I reply: The context of Acts 21 shows nothing of Paul trying to please anybody in the sense that you are saying. This is not a text where Paul is “becoming all things to all men” but rather one in which he is combating false rumors circulating about him that say he was teaching the Jews to abandon Moses and not circumcise their children. James and rest of the elders at the Jerusalem assembly told Paul to involve himself with the men on the Nazarite vow (Acts 21:23-24) so that all may know that what they were hearing about Paul amounted to nothing; on the contrary, Paul himself was careful about observing the Torah (Acts 21:24).

    You wrote: “I am trying to keep my posts as brief as possible. Don’t want to flood it, like some people. If Anthony wasn’t able to persuade you I doubt I will be able to. Like I said before, doing this more for the benefit of other readers.”

    I reply: Xavier… you wrote in post #31 the following: “MJ, You gona dialogue with me bro or am I just wasting thread space here?” Did you really mean this statement? This is the reason I have taken so much time and space to respond to your citations of texts which you wrongly declare teach that Yeshua and His apostles abrogated the Torah.

    I had written: “This shows that he is about to contrast their interpretation of the Torah with his own.”

    To which you replied: “What Paul later says is a result of that. Or are you telling me that Messiah simply mouths what was already stated as Torah?”

    I reply: I am saying that the Messiah did not add ANY new law in Matthew 5 – NONE WHATSOEVER. Yeshua was contrasting his true interpretations of the Torah with the false interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. I’ve explained this in at least 2 posts I know in further detail, so I will not explain it again. Please consult the earlier posts if you wish to know my view on Matthew 5:16-20 and following. I would really love to hear you rebuttal to my position.

    I had written: “Paul does not have the authority to go beyond the teachings of Yeshua.”

    To which you replied: “He wrote whole letters clearly teaching against Sabbath, circumcision etc., all with the authority that Messiah commisioned him with on the road to Damascus.”

    I reply: I wholly disagree and I’ve shared with you time and time again as to why but you’ve given no exegetical rebuttals, but instead you keep repeating the same basic sentences over and over again. Yeshua did not commission Paul to go and teach and different message that he taught himself. Paul taught that the doers of the Torah would be justified (Rom. 2:13) and that he was not nullifying the law through faith (Rom. 3:31). Paul taught the commandment was holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), and that it is the carnal mind that doesn’t submit itself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). Paul also practiced what he preached, he was careful about observing the Torah (Acts 21:24).

    You wrote: “So let me get this straight. The Jerusalem church orders Paul to perform a Torah based ritual; so why don’t they send orders to the Gentiles to observe those very same laws? Instead, as per the Jerusalem council decision, they are only told to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” [v. 25]”

    I reply: First, if the Torah wasn’t necessary for the Gentiles why did the council order the Gentiles to observe 4 categories found directly in the Torah? Secondly, do you really believe that this was the only four laws the Gentiles had to abide by? What about murder, theft, coveting, honoring parents, esteeming God’s name, etc. none of which are mentioned in the letter of the elders to the Gentiles. Thirdly, the reason the council gave the four laws was to direct the Gentiles out of the practices they were steeped in the most. This is why Acts 15:21 says, “…for since ancient times, Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, and he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” In other words, the Gentiles had to quit the four things mentioned in Acts 15:20, and as they attending synagogue services (which is where the early assembly met – see James 2:2 in the Greek) on the Sabbath they would hear the law of Moses being read and learn the remainder of the law as they grew in grace and knowledge.

    Conclusion: I will stop here for now and I do want to say that I apologize ahead of time if my typing comes across offensive in some places. I do my best to make extra sure to let my words reveal what I am feeling which is not at all a hatred or anger towards you Xavier. I must admit though, when you do not respond to my responses it does get frustrating, because I’m at a loss to know how you deal with texts that I’ve spent time “breaking down” in response to you. At any rate, I do want to know that I am trying to show the love of Messiah towards you.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  203. on 27 Jul 2010 at 10:22 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Matthew,
    The very complexity of your answer suggests that something is amiss. You didn’t explain what Torah was abolished in Eph 2 – you left us hanging. Your premise is false, Matthew – that the Torah of Messiah is the same as the Torah of Moses. Jesus is the new Moses and thus brings the new Torah. From your position, to be consistent, you must condemn us as sabbath-breakers and thus beyond the pale of salvation. We all know that obedience and salvation go together.

    My wider suggestion is: It is odd to be opposing almost the entirety of commentary for 2000 years. Those of us who know that commentary in some detail have long seen that the Trinity is not supported by it. But none imagines the thesis that you are basing your life on in terms of Torah. I can only suggest that both commentary and your unitarian brothers find your arguments here amazingly problematic.

    Thanks for the good discussion.

  204. on 27 Jul 2010 at 10:38 pmDoubting Thomas

    Welcome to KR Silke
    If you go to the thread titled “Tolerance among Unitarians” you will find an excellent article written by Brian Keating dated March 7, 2010. If you read through the comments section you will get a general idea of what many people here on this site believe. The article outlines 3 basic beliefs that everybody here shares, beyond that you will find there is wide variety of beliefs among the people who post here.

    If you want to, you can add an outline of your own general beliefs along with the others that are posted there…

  205. on 27 Jul 2010 at 11:10 pmXavier

    MJ

    …I would really like to know how you rebut all the explanations of each Scripture that I’ve been giving in response to your citations.

    My initial queries to you were regarding Rom 14. I feel I have been exegeting them as best as I can.

    …false rumors circulating about him that say he was teaching the Jews to abandon Moses and not circumcise their children.

    When we read his letters, especially Galatians, Ephesians, letters to Timothy, we see that they were not false rumours but true. This is something to Jerusalem leaders eventually come to understand and accept.

    I do want to know that I am trying to show the love of Messiah towards you.

    And your other master, Moses.

  206. on 27 Jul 2010 at 11:23 pmrobert

    Anthony
    You want so much to be apart of the sabbath rest of God you are willing to turn those found righteous (by Gods Holy commandments Given to Moses) into demons. You make his promise of the Old covenant void making God a liar to those that completely followed His commandments.
    You will never enter Gods rest without following the requirements set forth for it.
    My hope is that God will still find you morally acceptable and give you salvation

  207. on 28 Jul 2010 at 4:42 amJoseph

    The problems that arise to those contrary to Torah, is that it leads to a double standard. On one hand they seem to say that the Torah is not necessary for salvation, but on the other hand when confronted about specifics questions of sin/judgement, all of a sudden they are digging into the Torah. I see this all to often with those who deny the Torah as part of the New Covenant. They take a “either/or” position, rather than looking at it with “both/and” lenses. Paul’s letters are too vague on how the law applies to Gentiles to formulate a absolute. We know that his focus was a missionary in the world. I believe that Paul used a Torah-lite approach when confronting the gentile populace. He understood that one shouldn’t slap the whole book on a pagan. It wouldn’t make for a good seed. Paul fed them milk, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t grow up to eat of the good meat.

  208. on 28 Jul 2010 at 6:53 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi Anthony, (response to your post #203)

    Thanks for replying.

    You wrote: “The very complexity of your answer suggests that something is amiss.”

    I reply: I’ve been told the exact same thing by Trinitarians when exegeting John 1:1 . I believe the opposite is what is going on here. I have yet to have anyone on this entire thread take the time to do anything but “surface skate” on texts of Scripture. This is not the approach you guys take when discussing the Trinity with Trinitarians so it makes me wonder why you would use the approach in this discussion regarding the Torah.

    You wrote: “You didn’t explain what Torah was abolished in Eph 2 – you left us hanging.”

    I reply: Not so; I explained that it was the enmity or hostility (Eph. 2:14, 16) that was put to death, paralleling it with Colossians 2:14. I won’t repeat myself here, anyone can go to post #200 and read it.

    You wrote: “Your premise is false, Matthew – that the Torah of Messiah is the same as the Torah of Moses. Jesus is the new Moses and thus brings the new Torah.”

    I reply: We, of course, disagree here. I don’t know what else to do but to bring up Matthew 5:16-19 here. Yeshua says for us not to even think he came to abolish the Torah. He says that until heaven and earth pass away not one yod or stroke will pass away from the Torah until all is accomplished. He speaks this in the context of teaching others to observe the Torah, the Torah of Moses – the only Torah a Jewish man like Yeshua would have been talking about to his Jewish listeners. He says for them to let THEIR light shine, so men may see THEIR good works and glorify the Father (Mt. 5:16). He goes on to declare that ANYONE who breaks the least of the commandments and teaches other to do so will be called least in the kingdom of God. It is very difficult when looking intently at Yeshua’s own teachings to conclude that he came to bring a new, different Torah than Moses.

    You wrote: “From your position, to be consistent, you must condemn us as sabbath-breakers and thus beyond the pale of salvation. We all know that obedience and salvation go together.”

    I reply: You are correct Anthony, but I try to do this in love. I have a lot of respect for you in many areas of Scripture, but I believe you are very incorrect on this subject. I would ask that you read the book titled “Law and Grace” by Todd Bennett. You can find it on Amazon.

    You wrote: “My wider suggestion is: It is odd to be opposing almost the entirety of commentary for 2000 years. Those of us who know that commentary in some detail have long seen that the Trinity is not supported by it. But none imagines the thesis that you are basing your life on in terms of Torah. I can only suggest that both commentary and your unitarian brothers find your arguments here amazingly problematic.”

    I reply: I believe that I would be following a multitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2) if I went along with the majority of commentators on this issue. I would rather take my cue from Yeshua himself who never spoke evil of, negative against, or violated the Torah of Moses.

    Thanks for discussing Anthony,
    Matthew Janzen

  209. on 28 Jul 2010 at 7:13 amMatthew Janzen

    Hi, Xavier (response to your post #205)

    You wrote: “My initial queries to you were regarding Rom 14. I feel I have been exegeting them as best as I can.”

    I reply: This is not true. I first posted (#18) on this forum in connection with Brian’s initial post. You then posted (#19) a brief sentence and strung together three passages (Col. 2; Eph. 2; Gal. 4). I then posted (#21) giving you my understanding of Galatians 4:8-11 to which I’ve never seen you write another thing about in response. You then posted (#23) asking me to re-read Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews. Your next post (#27) asked me about these verses: Luke 6. 1-11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; Mar 7.19; Mat 15.11; Acts 10.15; 11.9; Rom 14.14. (I then took the time to exegete each of the texts you cited – Romans 14:14 being the last text in the list. I didn’t see one word in response to any of my posts except when I got around to dealing with Romans 14:14.)

    Your next post (#31) wondered if I was going to dialogue with you or not. This seemed to me to strongly insinuate that you wanted to get into a good discussion on the topic, thus all the posts I’ve strung together. In post #37 I gave you a little background/foundation as to my beliefs in Torah and then dealt with the text you cited that seem to teach Yeshua broke the Sabbath day. In post #38 I dealt with Matthew 15 and Mark 7, centering in mostly on Mark 7 seeing the two are parallel texts in the synoptics. You then posted (#39) thanking me for discussing, but not saying one word about anything I had stated in posts #37 and #38. You only brought up new material about the New Covenant and Paul’s writing in Philippians 3. My next post was #95 where I attempted to got back to your original listing of texts and explain Acts 10 and 11 which was next in line. Then I was next with post #125 where I finally got around to the last text you cited back in post #27 – Romans 14:14. I heard from you next in post #130 where you didn’t say anything about my posts #37 or #38 where I dealt with Luke 6. 1-11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; Mar 7.19; Mat 15.11; Acts 10.15; 11.9. All you did was quote the ESV study Bible and a quote from James Dun. You then repeated your citation of Mark 7 (which I dealt with extensively with no responses from you) and added a citation of Luke 11.

    I won’t go any further, but my point is that your initial queries were NOT regarding Romans 14:14, and I could go on and demonstrate that you have not even dealt with my argumentation on Romans 14:14.

    Anyhow, you can have the last word if you’d like. If you ever really want to discuss these texts, this subject, etc. please let me know.

    Shalom,
    Matthew

  210. on 28 Jul 2010 at 10:28 amXavier

    MJ

    This is not the approach you guys take when discussing the Trinity with Trinitarians so it makes me wonder why you would use the approach in this discussion regarding the Torah.

    The reason why the subject of the Trinity might require [at times] more than its fair share of “ink-space” is because we are combating a philosophical construct. Or, as I like to say to trinis, a riddle wraped in an enigma inside a mystery. 🙂

    We, of course, disagree here. I don’t know what else to do but to bring up Matthew 5:16-19 here.

    You guys [of the “circumcision group”] keep harking back to the Gospels. But what about the other NT letters like Hebrews which speaks of “the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises” [Heb 8.6; 12.24]. Let alone Pauline letters.

    I didn’t see one word in response to any of my posts except when I got around to dealing with Romans 14:14.

    True, let’s focus on one thing at a time. My bad for jumping around. And our dialogue regarding this particular chapter thus far has been like two ships passing in the night.

  211. on 28 Jul 2010 at 2:04 pmDavid

    *sigh*…
    I’m not talking about promises or sacrifices. I’m plainly talking about the relevancy of Mosaic Law with Christians (Or the rest of the world). I just know personally that Jesus did not come to Judaize the world, that was not his mission, nor was it to get people to all follow Mosaic Law.

    He came to show the world that they were blameless. Blame, Judgement, sin only came into the world after eating from the tree of law. We don’t over come our sin by it by trying to follow it tit for tat, we over come our sin, by becomeing blind to it.
    To illustrate a point. Adam, was sinless. Upon eating the fruit, he realized he was naked in public which he decided for himself he was naked. I’m sure it was Eve who told him so.
    Where was adam’s sin? In being naked? It couldn’t be… because he was already naked, even in his blameless state. The sin through which he committed was in eating of the tree, and becoming aware of unrightousness, thus self-condemnation enters in and destroyed them. This is the first rule in the entire bible ever to be broken. It is the very purpose for which Jesus came.
    Genesis 3:15
    “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.
    We all know who this seed is.
    Furthermore…. watch this and see if you catch it.
    John 3:14
    “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent, so must we lift up the son of man.”
    “John 5:26
    “But don’t think that is is I who will be your accuser before the Father. Do you know who will accuse you? Moses, the very one you have counted on!”
    “John 9:40-41”
    Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard him and asked, “Are you saying we’re blind?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
    Genesis 3:4-5-
    But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
    Romans 7:7-8
    What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandments, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
    The law… creates… sin. For where rightousness is made evident through a “list”, so is unrightousness made evident by contrast.
    This is why Jesus died on a cross, and why it is written “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree”. He fulfilled the law, by works of the law… since an innocent perfect sacrificed died by the law, the law had done itself in… and Jesus as a perfect sacrifice conquored sin.
    Seriously… In order to regain blamelessness, and sinlessness, by puting on Jesus’ rightousness… we become blind to iniquity as little children.
    The problem is that there are those of us here who still try to live by the law. And because of that they are under a curse.
    The problem is that people aren’t living the promise or living where they should be after the payment was made, because they think the New Covenant isn’t here yet out of serious error. One must die to the old husband to take the new one.

    Ephesians 2:14-15
    “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace.”

    This has more to do than just eliminating the enmity. Old Covenant supporters would argue that the above text does not really say what it plainly says. This has to do with eliminating enmity by nullification of the Mosaic. All though this creates a seeming contradiction with what Yeshua said, we can turn to Romans and get the solution:

    Romans 13:8-10
    “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”a and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

    In other words to walk in love and forgiveness IS to do the torah.

    The rest of that book is telling that all things are clean or unclean depending on who is beholding them. “To him that observes, does so for the lord, he that does not observe does so for the lord also. Just don’t offend your neighbor” (Paraphrased) In other words, if it’s offensive Bob that Jim smokes, or eats ham, then Jim should refrain in doing these things in Bob’s presence “Lest your good works be counted as evil”.

    This isn’t a brazen allowance to sin boldly… but it is certainly a black and white re-definition of exactly “what” sin is, and what “torah” is.

    The King is dead, long live the King…

  212. on 28 Jul 2010 at 3:15 pmrobert

    “I’m not talking about promises or sacrifices. I’m plainly talking about the relevancy of Mosaic Law with Christians (Or the rest of the world). I just know personally that Jesus did not come to Judaize the world, that was not his mission, nor was it to get people to all follow Mosaic Law.”

    David
    The first thing you need to realized is Jesus says he wasnt sent to the gentiles but was only sent to those of the Old covenant.
    It wasnt till his death as the perfect sacrafice that the whole world was redeemed from Adam’s sin because the blood of bulls were only shadows of Jesus’ sacrafice. So all Old covenant sacrafices were made perfect by the perfect sacrafice which redeemed all before Jesus and God by Grace grafted in the rest of the world into the spiritual promise of salvation.
    Salvation is for both jew and greek and has no requirements set forth in the Mosaic law. It is based on the morals contained in the Law and the testimony of Jesus. There is no signs giving to Mark those of salvation , there is just judgement of there actions. Those found moral will be found in the LAMB’S book of life and will receive salvation and those not moral Jesus will say he never knew them.
    This is the message of the apostles that was giving to the whole world.
    Now as i mentioned Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel to bring them back into the promise of the Old covenant and to fullfil the sacraficial laws to the true sacrafice,true high priest and true temple. These were not really changes they were bringing the true figures into light. The old sacraficial laws were no longer effective for the promise of the Old covenant because the new laws were what cast the shadows of the old.
    Hebrews was written to the lost sheep to explain everything that pertained to how the Old covenant was be followed after these changes were put into effect at Jesus’ death.
    So you see i dont claim that anyone needs to follow the mosaic law to receive salvation which comes after the Sabbath rest of God(1000 year) which has a requirement to follow the Mosaic Law and use the new sacraficial laws which requires accepting Jesus as the changes. I am sorry but i dont see the current judaism meeting the requirement for the Sabbath reast of God without accepting Jesus. They will be judged with the rest of the world on judgement day after the sabbath rest of God.

  213. on 28 Jul 2010 at 5:42 pmDoubting Thomas

    David msg. #211 you said “*sigh* I’m not talking about promises or sacrifices.”

    I’m not sure if this message was addressed to me or to Robert, but I will respond anyway. I also believe the Mosaic law does not apply to Christians or to the rest of the world. I believe that as a Gentile I only need to follow the 10 Commandments, the specific laws, teachings and parables of Yeshua/Jesus and the modified Noahide law outlined in the decision at the Council of Jerusalem.

    In msg. #190 you said, “Yeshua taught to obey it for ourselves, not teach others to do it, via fault finding and judgment. We must become blind to the law to see for ourselves. This is why Paul seems to be against it… He’s not against it, but he teaches we are free from it, because we are made righteous by grace… Think on it what I’ve said.”

    I am thinking on what you have said and have been going back rereading what you and others have said. Like I said I am feeling a bit confused and overwhelmed with all these various ideas that have been presented by different people. I’m use to just having a conversation with one person at a time. I’m not very good at multi-tasking.

    I do try to obey the laws that I think apply to me by myself. I do not teach others anything, for I don’t consider myself to be a teacher. I do not teach others that they must observe the Sabbath for instance. I just tell them that I think God would be extremely pleased if we all honored his holy day of rest that he himself sanctified as a holy day for all eternity.

    To me this is not a salvation issue. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and man was not made for the Sabbath. Therefore I believe that as long as people keep one day a week holy, so they can be close to God and contemplate all the things of God, then they are at least keeping the spirit of this commandment. Of course I think it would be better if they actually did this on the Sabbath but I don’t tell them that they MUST do this on the Sabbath.

    BTW – Over the last couple of nights I have been listening to the sermons from your link in msg. #176 from the Gateway church. I find the teachings are great and I seem to agree with everything I’ve heard so far. Later on tonight I plan on listening to another one of the sermons. Since your a Messianic Christian I was expecting the teacher to be a Rabbi or something. I was quite surprised to see that he wasn’t… 🙂

  214. on 28 Jul 2010 at 6:22 pmDavid

    DT

    You’ve got it right. My posts seem to be confusing because I’m not necessarily addressing any one specific person, but the group in general.

    I’m glad you’ve checked out those teachings on grace. They are quite awesome. I’ll listen to any teaching if it is actually truth. I use the term Messianic Believer, which implies that I’m a “Messianic Jew” because it’s the label that communicates that I follow the feasts, and adhere to some observances for a cultural benefit. I’ve come to a place in my faith where I’m almost afraid to put “any” label on it, because once I put a name or a face on it, it becomes something else, something smaller… I’d feel as if i’m making proverbial idols.

    I agree with you. I think people have the right to practice as they see fit. It is also by the law of love that we also respect those who wish to worship the way they want to. If one feels pressed to follow the Mosaic Law, then they can do so, they do so in honor of the Lord. If one chooses not too, they also do so in honor of the Lord.

    This is my understanding of Romans 14:5:
    One man who considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

    I feel that morality is found in walking in Love as it was written there is no law against such. Morality to me is not defined by what it is that one chooses to do, but rather found in how one apply’s law in his or her interactions with other people.

    It is not good for one to be strictly legalistic towards people to their own fail, nor is it good for strict libertinism. One group may have practices or customs found very offensive to other people. Take for example the church of Corinth. Why they may be fine in their own right, but what they did crossed to the point of great offense. They allowed their actions to give birth to hatred or harm. Any action (legalistic or libertine) when it harms, falls out-side the boundary of love.

    For instance, it is fine for those in my household to drink wine and eat meat, and commence in all manner of acceptable merry making. When it becomes dangerous, offensive, upsets the neighbors, or if something is deemed inappropriate by even one person present we would abstain from all such behaviors, out of love. (For instance, if there were a recovering alcoholic present, or i f my wife had bad experiences in the past and decided one day that alcohol made her very uncomfortable and did not want it around, it would not be around period… out of love.

    Robert,

    I understand what you are saying and that brings some clarity to the matter, because I was wondering if you were tying in Mosaic Covenant observance to salvation.

    Then what exactly would your take on “accepting Jesus” be? What does one do in order to accept Jesus? Is it walking the walk and accepting his teaching? Is it saying a sinner’s prayer and asking him to come into one’s heart? I’ve made my opinions known, but I don’t think I’ve read yours. Could you please share? 🙂

  215. on 28 Jul 2010 at 6:47 pmrobert

    “Then what exactly would your take on “accepting Jesus” be? What does one do in order to accept Jesus? Is it walking the walk and accepting his teaching? Is it saying a sinner’s prayer and asking him to come into one’s heart? I’ve made my opinions known, but I don’t think I’ve read yours. Could you please share?”

    As pertaining to salvation i think accepting Jesus as the one who’s actions were acceptable to God to redeem mankind from the sin of Adam would help me try to be more like Him.
    Now I believe Jesus redeemed all mankind even those of other religions and those before he lived and now we are only judged by our own immorality. Therefore accepting Jesus is only necessary if you know of Him. I would say it would be unprofitable to deny him once you have known him.

    As pertaining to the Sabbath rest of God, accepting him and accepting his teaching is a must but i do know those that answer this call will be few from Jesus to present and feel I am not worthy of it myself. i believe my earlier life may have marked me with the mark of other nations.

  216. on 28 Jul 2010 at 10:23 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    I loved the way you explained Rom. 14:5 in msg. #214 it makes a lot of sense to me. I also love the way that Robert Morris exlains the letters of Paul. He explains them in a way that makes sense to me so that I can understand what they mean. I’ve always found Paul’s writings very difficult to understand but they do seem to make sense the way you and Robert Morris explain them.

    I just finished listening to the third sermon about grace and it was great. I am learning a lot and love them so much that I think when I have finished listening to all 5 sermons I will go back and listen to them a second time. There is just so much information in them. I am so glad you posted them in msg. 176 above so that I could listen to them.

    Thanks!! Have a good night and God Bless…

  217. on 28 Jul 2010 at 10:53 pmJoseph

    David,

    Romans 13:8-10
    “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”a and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

    In other words to walk in love and forgiveness IS to do the torah.

    The rest of that book is telling that all things are clean or unclean depending on who is beholding them. “To him that observes, does so for the lord, he that does not observe does so for the lord also. Just don’t offend your neighbor” (Paraphrased) In other words, if it’s offensive Bob that Jim smokes, or eats ham, then Jim should refrain in doing these things in Bob’s presence “Lest your good works be counted as evil”.

    This isn’t a brazen allowance to sin boldly… but it is certainly a black and white re-definition of exactly “what” sin is, and what “torah” is.

    The King is dead, long live the King…

    Many good points, and to further expand, we should take every passage into context. Obviously loving your neighbor will not immune one from sinning, although this simple teaching does cover a large portion of commandments. How does one know that bestiality is a sin? Incest? There is a reason the Torah has been preserved with great accuracy over thousands of years, it really is amazing that Yeshua predicted this in Matthew 5:16-19.

    We are told the path is narrow. Let us not mistake Paul’s dedication and actions of spreading seeds to the pagan world as our guidebook for observing the law. Otherwise we fall off the path that Paul himself followed.

  218. on 29 Jul 2010 at 6:15 pmSilke

    Hi Robert,
    you said (#198):

    The mosaic law was just a call to separate from other nations, it was a sign of a separate people.
    Abraham recieved the promise for obeying his call to separate from other nations.
    Mosaic law is just an extension of the call to separate to Abraham.

    I cannot find any reference where God’s promise of the land to Abraham is connected to separation from other nations. The only separation God demanded of him was from his land, his father’s house and his family (Gen. 12,1).

    And, the Mosaic law to me is much more than a call to and a sign of separation.

    For this and other reasons, I do not see a strong relation between the covenant with Abraham and the covenant mediated by Moses. More over, Paul contrasts the faith of Abraham to the law given over 400 years later:

    Gal. 3,6 and 9-12 (KJV)

    Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. […] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

    Robert, if I missed something, please, name the verse that states what you have said in the above mentioned passage.

  219. on 29 Jul 2010 at 7:21 pmrobert

    “I cannot find any reference where God’s promise of the land to Abraham is connected to separation from other nations. The only separation God demanded of him was from his land, his father’s house and his family (Gen. 12,1).”

    Silke
    This was the call to separate his family from all others, many nations came from the area where Abraham and many other gods were worshipped. Yahweh calling for Abraham to separate was to set up a people for himself in which this call to separate was the most commanded of all things to Israel. He gave them laws for the purpose of promoting separation, He gave them signs to show they were a separate people.
    and all this started with God calling Abraham from the area and the people of the land of his birth.
    Mosaic law is nothing more than Yahweh’s way of keeping a separate people.
    There was many things God did to preserve the seed of Eve from being mixed with the seed of lucifer because if mixed one couldnt bruise the others. We know that Jesus was one of these seeds and we know his bloodline doesnt come through Cain. So the mission was acomplished By God by the flood,by Abraham separating, By Issac wife coming from the line of Seth not the natives, By Jacob chosing from the line of Seth unlike Essau whose from the natives, By Judah concieving with Tamar , daughter of Shem son of Noah.
    God had a purpose for the call to separate From Abraham all the way to Jesus.

    “For this and other reasons, I do not see a strong relation between the covenant with Abraham and the covenant mediated by Moses.”

    It was the same covenant just some different conditions that needed apllied.

    Just as the promise all Nations would be bless is the same promise of grace of the NT.

    Both promises carry there own separate resurrection because Abraham received PROMISES NOT JUST A PROMISE.

  220. on 29 Jul 2010 at 10:41 pmDoubting Thomas

    David (msg. #214)
    You said, “I use the term Messianic Believer which implies that I’m a ‘Messianic Jew’ because it is a label that communicates that I follow the feasts, and adhere to some observances for a cultural benefit. I’ve come to a placed in my faith where I’m almost afraid to put ‘any’ label on it, because once I put a name or a face on it, it becomes something else, something smaller… I’d feel as if I was making proverbial idols.”

    I think that God is less interested in how we label ourselves and is much more interested in how we treat each other. I am lucky in that my beliefs, that I have come to completely independent from any other human influence, happens to perfectly fit almost perfectly with what the Socinians believe. Although I do have some strange beliefs that most of the Socinians seem to not agree with.

    But to me it is abnormal for a large group of people to believe the exact same thing. IMO – If they did this it would be a sure sign of a cult. BTW – I don’t know anything about Jewish feasts etc… If you could let me know when one is coming up, and what it is all about, I’d like to celebrate it in my own way, like maybe saying a prayer of thanks in honor of the feast, or something like that. Thanks…

  221. on 30 Jul 2010 at 6:22 pmSilke

    Hi Robert,

    especially since I am new here, I am hesitant to address you once again – I do not want to be rude. Yet, you expressed in your comments 198 and 219 (and others) a concept that is – in my eyes – foreign to Scripture.

    I might be wrong, and I am here to learn and as well hopefully help others in their search for truth. But I want to be only convinced by statements, that are supported by Scripture. Therefore, please, bear with me, if I ask you again, to provide verses from Scripture that cleary support your statements.

    To give some hints that “separation from other nations” was not at all the demand of God towards Abraham or what Abraham lived, please, see verses like:

    Gen. 14,13

    […] Mamre the Amorite […] these were confederate with Abram.

    Gen. 21, 22-32

    […] Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest[…]swear unto me[…]according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. […] Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba […]

    Gen. 23, 3-16

    Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you […] And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us […] And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land.

    Far later in history, with Israel and the covenant God made with them, the element of separation might be important. (Although to me, here again the love and obedience towards God and the love towards one’s neighbours has the emphasis – not the separation from others.) Yet, an emphasis on separation would not prove, that separation was important with Abraham already. On contrary, it would only speak for more distinction between the covenant with Abraham and the one with Israel.

    For now I can’t help but view it as you reading your understanding of the Mosaic Covenant / Law into the message about Abraham.

  222. on 30 Jul 2010 at 7:22 pmrobert

    Silke
    This understanding doesnt come from just one verse of passage,It requires the whole bible, complete world history, ancient writings and some plain common sense.
    One the most important things was figure out that Genesis 1 & 2 was not connected and then finding the full understanding of
    Genesis 3:15. The seed of the woman we know was Jesus through Seth but who was the seed of satan. since we know this is speaking as a physical reality we can not ignore the seed of satan was a physical lineage. We also know Cain was the son of the evil one(satan).
    With that in mind read the bible as a story to keep these 2 lineages separate till the one is born that will do the bruising and I promise you the bible will make perfect sense from Genesis to Revelation.
    I dont have time to work through every chapter and verse and I dont believe that this is something you must know to receive salvation.This is just my need to understand what i can possibly understand of the Plan of God.
    I am sure you will receive salvation just like all the Good people who have lived since the creation of Human kind because Jesus redeemed all mankind for Adam’s sin even Adam himself.
    The NT lays out very clearly whats not acceptable if you want salvation.
    But Salvation comes after the promise to Abraham to possess the land which the Old covenant is just a continuence OF.
    The promise that all nations would be blessed was a separate promise made to Abraham that The promise of Grace was a continuence of in which the gentiles were grafted into after the death of Jesus, The gentiles became an heir in this promise.
    There also was several other promise made to Abraham which found their fulfillment at different times throughout history and still a few to come.
    Tradition has tried to lump them all together or flat out ignore some of them.

    BTW I would never think you were rude or think less of you for asking or not seeing things the way i see them. You have been very polite.

  223. on 31 Jul 2010 at 7:47 amDavid

    DT,

    Thanks. I think the same way. I just, don’t like labels personally. 🙂 Once I label myself, people think I have some sort of stereotypical agenda commonly associated with that label. Not that I care what people think about me, but rather that it creates opportunity to be misunderstood before I even open my mouth. For instance, if I were to say “I’m a devout Hindu”… (hypothetically) most Christians like myself would pay almost zero attention to anything I have to say, no matter how helpful it could be. Labels are just labels. Maybe thats why God didn’t want labels, because once there is a label, it becomes much less universal.

    I’m glad you like Robert Morris. My absolute favorite out of the series is the last one “Where on earth does God live”? Absolutely life changing for anyone who is carrying a lot of burden or guilt. If you know anyone who is feeling like absolute trash, maybe they are an addict, or maybe they carry a lot of shame, that last sermon in the series is absolute gold! 🙂

    Thomas if you’d like, I can let you know. There are plenty going on right now and coming up. I like following them, I like the feeling of “Hey, these are the same holy days that Jesus celebrated, and that were a for shadowing of him. You can email me at: david@moshiach.com
    ———

    Robert,

    Thanks for answering the question. I have quite similar beliefs. Right now in my current understanding I believe the work Jesus did is timeless. What’s done is done, and could only have been done by him. The rest of the teachings are how one should maintain their walk, in love and grace, and also warnings of how not to walk. I like this because I firmly believe the current mainstream belief (saying a sinner’s prayer OR belief in Jesus as if he were the easter bunny) makes absolutely no sense, biblically or by common sense. Kinda like an anonymous gift. Jesus was big on giving anonymously. Weather one knows or doesn’t know, it’s a gift. He gave us the car and he taught us how to drive the car without crashing it. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, it brings much of what you said into perspective. Written text is not the best of mediums to convey ideas… at least imo, because there is so much lost in comparison to spoken word. 🙂

    ———-

    Joseph,

    I agree with that. The law shows us what unrighteousness is. There are many things nobody would know is a sin if they didn’t know. The good thing about grace is that it puts our sins in a better perspective. Instead of being crushed by it, imagining a “clip board” God infuriated, it allows us to see ourselves as little children and our Father looking at us as well, a father does. It makes us want to follow instead of feeling like complete dirt. People do tend to have polarized views. The law isn’t bad, but it’s impossible to follow all on it’s own, without grace. Nobody says “You know, I read the law, and it said stealing is bad, and bam! I don’t steal anymore! It just changed my heart, just reading it!”. 🙂 Grace is good because it doesn’t say, “You failed, you failed again, you failed again, you failed, you failed, just give up already”. Most people quit when they fail that much, and the feeling of guilt they have just takes the wind out of them. I like grace because it says “You didn’t get it this time, but that’s okay, try again. Try again, almost there, you can make it. I love you, you can do it.”. 🙂

  224. on 31 Jul 2010 at 3:30 pmrobert

    Silke
    Here are some readings of some old translations and some new.
    This should help you see the these lineages had to stay separate for this to find fulfillment.
    Seth’s bloodline and is the offspring mentioned that bruises the head of satan when it produced Jesus the ultimate obidient offspring.

    TRANSLATIONS – VERSES
    GENESIS 3:14-16; 4:1-2

    1. King James Version

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
    KJV

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

    4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
    KJV

    1. National American Standard Bible – Updated Edition

    Genesis 3:13-15
    3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

    3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

    3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
    NASU

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”

    4:2 Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
    NASU

    New International Version

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

    3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

    3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
    (from New International Version)

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”

    4:2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
    (from New International Version)

    New King James Version

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

    3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

    3:16 To the woman He said:”I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
    NKJV

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

    4:2 Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
    NKJV

    New American Standard

    Genesis 3:13-16
    3:14 And the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly shall you go, And dust shall you eat All the days of your life;

    3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel. ”

    3:16 To the woman He said,”I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
    NAS

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”

    4:2 And again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
    NAS

    Targum of Onkelos

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, more accursed art thou than all cattle, and than all the beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and the dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

    3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and between the woman, and between thy son and her son. He will remember thee, what thou didst to him (at) from the beginning, and thou shalt be observed unto him at the end.

    3:16 And to the woman He said, Multiplying, I will multiply thy sorrows and thy pains. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; and unto thy husband shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Kain; and she said, I have acquired the man from before the Lord.

    4:2 And she added to give birth to his brother, Habel. And Habel was a shepherd of the flock, and Kain a man working on the ground.

    Tanakh – JPS1917

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent: ‘Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

    3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.’

    3:16 Unto the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’

    4:2 And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

    Torah

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you did this, More cursed shall you be Than all cattle And all the wild beasts: On your belly shall you crawl And dirt shall you eat All the days of your life.

    3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.’

    3:16 Unto the woman He said: ‘I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children; yet your urge shall be for yourhusband, and he shall rule over you.’

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord.”

    4:2 She then bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

    Tanakh

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you did this, More cursed shall you be Than all cattle And all the wild beasts: On your belly shall you crawl And dirt shall you eat All the days of your life.

    3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.’

    3:16 Unto the woman He said: ‘I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children; yet your urge shall be for yourhusband, and he shall rule over you.’

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord.”

    4:2 She then bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

    Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 and He said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou of all the cattle, and of all the beasts of the field: upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

    3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel.

    3:16 Unto the woman He said, Multiplying, I will multiply thy affliction by the blood of thy virginity, and by thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bear children, and to thy husband shall be thy desire, and he will have rule over thee unto righteousness or unto sin.

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.

    4:2 And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel. And Habel was a shepherd of the flock, but Kain was a man working in the earth.

    JAMES MOFFATT TRANSLATION

    Genesis 3:14-16
    3:14 So God the Eternal said to the serpent, “Since you have done this, A curse on you of all creatures! A curse on you of all beasts! On your belly shall you crawl and eat dust all your days!
    3:15 And I will set a feud between you and the woman, between your brood and hers: they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.”
    3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make child-birth a sore pain for you, you shall have pangs in bearing; yet you shall crave to have your husband, and he shall master you.”

    Genesis 4:1-2
    4:1 Now the man had intercourse with his wife Eve; she conceived and bore Cain (Got), saying, “I have got a man from the Eternal.”
    4:2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel was a shepherd, while Cain was a farmer.

  225. on 31 Jul 2010 at 3:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    David (msg. 223)
    I love the way you said, “I like grace because it says you didn’t get it this time, but that’s okay, try again. Try again, you can make it, your almost there. I love you, you can do it…”

    That IS a great way to think about grace…

  226. on 01 Aug 2010 at 7:33 amSilke

    Robert (msg. 222 and 224),

    I agree, that our discussion is not about an issue of salvation. Yet, concepts that – in my opinion – are added to the biblical message can cause deviation from its important topics and even separation between believers. That is, why I would like to answer once again.

    As far as I understood, you are saying that the seed of the woman comes out of the bloodline of Seth (I agree), whereas the seed of the serpent is a (or are the) descendant(s) of Cain. That seems to be impossible, for the following reasons:

    If seed is meant in a physical sense (which fits to the concept of bloodline) the distinction is impossible in terms of the seed of the serpent and that of Eve: Seth and Cain (and their
    descendants) where both seeds / bloodline of Eve.

    Seed would not make sense in as moral or spiritual status, since Jesus is the seed of Eve, yet he was righteous but she fell in tempation and tempted her husband. So in this sense we would have two unrighteous lines.

    Besides that, it is most likely that the bloodline of Cain ended at latest during the flood. Noah was a descendant of Seth (see Gen. 5), obviously his sons were too. All other men died during the flood. And even if the women were descedants of Cain – which seems unlikely – the separation would be gone.

    Therefore – to name just one aspect – I cannot see what the verses you quoted have to do with your concept of only those who follow the mosaic law being part of the first resurrection, or the separation being the unifying aspect between Abraham and the ones under the mosaic law.

  227. on 01 Aug 2010 at 10:27 amRay

    The law is good and serves a purpose but let’s remember that there is a righteousness that is apart from it and that if we are to be saved, we must become a part of that grace. (See Romans 3:21)

  228. on 01 Aug 2010 at 11:26 amrobert

    “If seed is meant in a physical sense (which fits to the concept of bloodline) the distinction is impossible in terms of the seed of the serpent and that of Eve: Seth and Cain (and their
    descendants) where both seeds / bloodline of Eve.”

    Silke
    The lineage from Seth to Jesus is what was to be kept pure from Cains lineage.I didnt matter if other lines where pure.

    “Besides that, it is most likely that the bloodline of Cain ended at latest during the flood.”

    Silke
    It is obvious that Ham was not of the same mother as Shem, but what most people dont realize is the Flood was localized not worldwide,which the earth as its own history book provides witness to. This local flood was not big enough to cover the migration of 1500+ years so after the flood people migrated back into the area. So far this provides 2 sources for the lineage of Cain to exist after the Flood and can be the only way we find the multitude of nations a short time after flood.

    “Therefore – to name just one aspect – I cannot see what the verses you quoted have to do with your concept of only those who follow the mosaic law being part of the first resurrection, or the separation being the unifying aspect between Abraham and the ones under the mosaic law. ”

    Silke
    The first ressurection is the promise of the OLD COVENANT and the OLD COVENANT is the expanded Covenant made with Abraham and His decendents of possessing All the land shown to Abraham which has always carried conditions of obidience.

    The second resurrection is the resurrection of Jesus’ redeemed(just) and the resurrection of the doomed(unjust) and is the promise of Grace which is the fulfilled promise made to Abraham that All nations would be blessed which was a promise that was unconditional and was never effected by obidience. This promise is to those who possess morals that promote love of all creation.
    This is the resurrection WE who are not mark by the signs of Abraham and Israel will be raised in.
    Even though I wont probably be a part of the first ressurection I still find that the Laws given to Moses by God are perfect, I just realized that too late.

  229. on 01 Aug 2010 at 6:00 pmSilke

    Robert (#228)

    […]the Flood was localized not worldwide,which the earth as its own history book provides witness to. This local flood was not big enough to cover the migration of 1500+ years so after the flood people migrated back into the area.[…]

    Although this idea is popular nowadays, it is not reasonable in itself and would make God unfaithful. Here a just a few points:

    Why would anyone build an enormous boat to save himself and all land animals and birds if he (and the animals) would have had to just move to another area for some time?
    (Or why would God command a man to do such a weird thing?)

    How could God have achieved his clearly stated plan by a local flood?

    Gen. 6, 7

    And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    Gen. 6, 13

    And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    Gen. 7, 4

    For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

    How could a local flood cover the highest mountains in any limited region?
    (The waters would have to rise over this region like a block held by an invisible wall. Not to mention, that it clearly talks about “all the high hills” and “under the whole heaven”.)

    Gen. 7, 19-20

    And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    Does God break his promises and covenants?
    (God promised to never again bring such a flood. Since Noah’s time there were many devastating local floods. If the flood at Noah’s time was a local one, than God’s promise was, not to bring another local flood. And than he would have broken that promise and covenant.)

    Gen. 8, 21

    And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’ sake; for the imagination of man’ heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

    Gen. 9, 14

    And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

    Will the last judgement be a local event as well?
    (It is clearly compared to the flood here.)

    2 Peter 3, 5-7

    For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    Did you get the idea of a local flood by reading Scripture or by believing the teachings of mainstream scientists and – sadly – mainstream modern christians?

    Here is a very good series of videos (approx. 1 hour all together) which describes the flood in terms of Scripture and Science very well:
    Noah’s Flood

    […]the Flood was localized not worldwide,which the earth as its own history book provides witness to.[…]

    No, the earth testifies to God’s judgement; the rock layers and fossils confirm what Scripture says!

  230. on 01 Aug 2010 at 6:15 pmSilke

    Robert,

    thank you for clarifying what you meant in terms of the first resurrection. I would sum up the difference between your and my view like this:

    First resurrection for those under the mosaic law or for those in Christ?

    Since you did not provide any scripture verses in support of your view, I will stick to my understand – and guess will have to agree to disagree for now.

    1 Thess 4, 16

    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

    Rev 20, 4

    And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  231. on 01 Aug 2010 at 7:13 pmrobert

    “Does God break his promises and covenants?
    (God promised to never again bring such a flood. Since Noah’s time there were many devastating local floods. If the flood at Noah’s time was a local one, than God’s promise was, not to bring another local flood. And than he would have broken that promise and covenant.)”

    Silke
    No God doesnt break promises,men just misunderstand or some deceive by translations.
    I am sorry but the earth doesnt lie because it Cant, The flood was to judged those of Seth who took wifes of the lineage of Cain. You want him to judge others for things they didnt do. God preserved the lineage of the offspring of Eve through Adam and also preserved the offspring of Cain through satan with Ham and the rest of the people who migrated out of the area. In the last 500 years over half the earth was populated through migration. there was over 1500 years from Adam to Noah.
    It is ok you disagree with me but if you post something i dont agree with i will state my opinion on it. I welcome your opinion because sometimes they challenge me to did even deeper and sometimes i come to a better understanding from it. there is nothing sacred to me that i dont feel should be proved and reproved using ALL resources available to me.
    Your not a convert prospect cause I dont feel that you need to know anything more than love to receive salvation.
    I am just interested in the quest of the WHOLE TRUTH because that is something I want.

  232. on 01 Aug 2010 at 8:11 pmrobert

    “Since Noah’s time there were many devastating local floods.”

    Silke
    I can see i wasnt very clear as to what i meant by localized, I see you are trying to define it by a small area in which thats not what i meant. The word I should of used was regional and as far as the history of the earth tells us there has been only one within that region in the last 6000 years. The only time the whole earth could of been flooded was during creation. It doesnt take that much science to know that the way the continents are formed now that there is no way there is enough water to cover the whole earth. So this is where a little common sense enters.
    We cant just throw out common sense to back tradition and if you really research you will find most translations have errors all the way through them.

  233. on 01 Aug 2010 at 9:58 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray
    You said, “The law is good and serves a purpose but let us remember that there is a righteousness that is apart from it and that if we are to be saved, we must become apart of that grace.”

    I agree. I like the way you worded that…

  234. on 01 Aug 2010 at 10:24 pmrobert

    “Here is a very good series of videos (approx. 1 hour all together) which describes the flood in terms of Scripture and Science very well:
    Noah’s Flood”

    Silke
    Sorry but 15 minutes is all i could take of this. this man hasnt a clue to science or physics or he just a fictional speaker.
    If the whole earth was flooded where would the water receed to. there has to be a lower area for water to flow to. this guy must of never done any type of plumbing or he would have a clue what he is saying is a crock.
    The only time the earth was flooded was before molton elements formed land masses. Has anyone ever explained how an island is formed to you, nobody expained it to this poor soul on the video.
    God gave us common sense to use ,not save for another life

  235. on 01 Aug 2010 at 11:03 pmrobert

    “Ray
    You said, “The law is good and serves a purpose but let us remember that there is a righteousness that is apart from it and that if we are to be saved, we must become apart of that grace.”

    I agree. I like the way you worded that… ”

    Thomas,Ray
    I agree but would like to state that righteousness was never something the Mosaic Civil laws of Israel could provide. it was the belief in the sacraficial laws that a person became righteous by which Jesus’ sacrafice made effective.After Jesus it is the belief that Jesus became that sacrafice that a person becomes righteous by. The law just brings us to need this sacrafice.

  236. on 03 Aug 2010 at 3:27 pmSilke

    Hi Robert,

    I am always suprised when a believer gets so emotional while defending evolution or the idea of a local / regional flood. In my eyes, you belittle a fellow believer simply because he promotes a different understanding of scripture and scientific evidence.

    Sorry but 15 minutes is all i could take of this. this man hasnt a clue to science or physics or he just a fictional speaker.

    The speaker, Dr. Mortenson holds a Ph.D. in the history of geology from the University of Coventry in England. That should give him atleast some idea of what he is talking about. Since we are here to discuss spiritual things I had thought his approach best fitting, since he argues a lot based on Scripture.

    But here is a geologist explaining where the water could have come from and went to again at the end of the flood:
    Global Tectonics and the Flood (especially the first video – less than 20 minutes)
    This video is more technical, but still understandable for people like me. Of course scientist like him have published really complex, sophisticated stuff as well, yet that would not help me anymore.

    You had asked

    If the whole earth was flooded where would the water receed to. there has to be a lower area for water to flow to.

    After watching that video you will have an answer to this question and hopefully see, that those fellow believers are full grown modern scientists and not stubborn dreamers clining to an old myth or tradition.

    After answering your questions I would love to see you answer atleast some of my still open questions, like:

    Question 1

    Why would anyone build an enormous boat to save himself and all land animals and birds if he (and the animals) would have had to just move to another area for some time?
    (Or why would God command a man to do such a weird thing?)

    Question 2

    How could God have achieved his clearly stated plan by a local flood?

    God is talking about destroying all flesh and every living substance.

    in the account of the flood is he talking about a specific group of people, let alone about Cain or his descendants!
    Gen. 5, 2 does not say “the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain” – as you probably hint by saying:

    The flood was to judged those of Seth who took wifes of the lineage of Cain.

    And even if that would be the case, Scripture gives something else as the reason for the flood: the violence and evil:
    Gen. 6, 5-6 and 11-12

    5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
    6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
    12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

    Question 3

    How could a local flood cover the highest mountains in any limited region?

    Question 4

    Will the last judgement be a local event as well?
    It is clearly compared to the flood here: 2 Peter 3, 5-7

    BTW: I certainly do not agree with all that the web site I was linking to states. Yet, they equip believers with information, that allows us to once again understand Scripture the plain way it was meant, instead of twisting it to accommodate it to modern mainstream scientists world views and theories.

  237. on 03 Aug 2010 at 4:43 pmrobert

    Question 1

    Why would anyone build an enormous boat to save himself and all land animals and birds if he (and the animals) would have had to just move to another area for some time?

    Answser 1
    When the objective is to clear a large area of an ungodly bloodline it would not make much sense to move a few that you wanted to save to another area where the same ungodly bloodline exist. We are talking about an area the sized of the middle east and would take 100’s of years for people outside of this area to migrate in. This allowed for Shems lineage hundreds of years of breeding before any outside bloodlines appeared.
    This made it to Abraham who followed all God’s ways even when he was amongst other nations. Abraham even made sure the Son of the promise Isaac didnt take a wife from amongst the people of the land but only from the bloodline of Shem

    Question 2

    How could God have achieved his clearly stated plan by a local flood?

    I explained that in answer 1

    Question 3

    How could a local flood cover the highest mountains in any limited region?

    The area of the middle east is one of the lowest in altitude,
    the has been many large meteors hit the earth and there are craters in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and could of caused mass flooding in a region that is 700 ft below see level where the Jordan river flows into the Dead sea. this also could account for the extreme levels of salt from a very large body of salt water evaporating leaving a very high content of salt behind.

    Question 4

    Will the last judgement be a local event as well?
    Well no
    It is clearly compared to the flood here: 2 Peter 3, 5-7

    Maybe you should read the verse you quoted to see the the earth was standing OUT of the water and in the water.
    That can be said for how the earth is today.
    But still it may or may not be refering to the flood, might be during creation. but if you are going to say it refers to the flood then you have to account for The EARTH STANDING OUT OF THE WATER which shoots holes all the way through your whole earth flood.

    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    I havent watched the video yet but will , I do hope its not another educated idiot without any common sense trying to make a god out of himself.

  238. on 03 Aug 2010 at 5:43 pmrobert

    “After watching that video you will have an answer to this question and hopefully see, that those fellow believers are full grown modern scientists and not stubborn dreamers clining to an old myth or tradition.”

    Silke
    everything he said is physically possible except there is no way it happened within the last 100 thousand years.
    There is probably 50 thousand scientist that could prove his time span is wrong to every 1 scientist that is driven by tradition to force their findings.
    It was a very interesting video ,thank you for sharing it

  239. on 06 Aug 2010 at 10:17 pmrobert

    Sorry post it in wrong thread.
    this is correct thread

    “thank you for clarifying what you meant in terms of the first resurrection. I would sum up the difference between your and my view like this:

    First resurrection for those under the mosaic law or for those in Christ?

    Since you did not provide any scripture verses in support of your view, I will stick to my understand – and guess will have to agree to disagree for now.

    1 Thess 4, 16

    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

    Rev 20, 4

    And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

    ———————————————————–

    Silke
    Just how does this Matthew 25:31-46 even resemble Rev 20 :4?
    Are there any unrighteous people being judged in Rev 20 :4? NO
    Are there righteous and unrighteous people being judged Revelation 20 :11-15? absolutely Yes

    Since Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of both righteous and unrighteous being judge when Jesus returns and its doesnt match Rev 20 :4 but matches perfectly Revelation 20 :11-15 why do people not see the resurrection of those in Christ as the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 which doesnt occur till after the 1000 years.
    You want to know just whats required to receive salvation then look very hard at Matthew 25:31-46 because whats in here is all the requirements. this is the behavior that get you written in the Lamb’s book of life . it is impossible to possess this behavior and be a murderer,liar,theif,adulterer or any crime against humanity

    Matthew 25
    31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

  240. on 07 Aug 2010 at 2:38 pmSilke

    I need to put something right in my comment #236, where I wrote:

    in the account of the flood is he talking about a specific group of people, let alone about Cain or his descendants!

    That is the opposite of what I wanted to say:

    Nowhere in the account of the flood is he talking about a specific group of people, let alone about Cain or his descendants!

  241. on 07 Aug 2010 at 3:55 pmSilke

    Hi Robert,

    to your answer 1: It still does not explain, why that could not be achieved far more reasonably by Noah and his family leaving that region for one year and than going back.
    ______________

    Your answer 2 does not deal with the purpose stated in Gen. 6-9, e.g.

    Gen. 6,7 (KJV)

    And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    Gen. 6,7 (NIV)

    So the LORD said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them.

    He is talking about man whom he has created – he is not talking about some of descendants of the man he had created! That is, he is talking generally about mankind. The same is true for the animals mentioned here.

    Gen. 7, 3-4 (emphasis mine)

    Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
    For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

    Gen. 6, 17

    And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

    If this means all the landanimals and birds of let’s say a twentieth part of the earth, than we can give up, trying to reading any clear statement in Scripture. There would be no certain meaning to words at all.

    Robert, the account of the flood is either the true account of a historical worldwide flood or it is a myth.
    ________________

    Your answer 3 is not taking into account geographical reality. Assuming you were right, the flood had only covered something like the middle east. In Iraq – to give just one example – the highest mountain reaches 3,611 m (11,847 ft)! How would you cover that mountain with a flood that is limited to the middle east? It is simply not possible!

    Just for the records: I do not believe that at the beginning of the flood there were mountains as high as nowadays. The video explains why that is the case. But that concept does require a worldwide flood, so it is not applicable to your local flood.
    _________________

    You said:

    But still it may or may not be refering to the flood, might be during creation. but if you are going to say it refers to the flood then you have to account for The EARTH STANDING OUT OF THE WATER which shoots holes all the way through your whole earth flood.

    To me the meaning of 2 Peter 3, 5-7 is clearly the following:

    […] by the word of God (> Gen. 1) the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. (> still Gen. 1 until right before the flood) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (> the flood) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, (after the flood til today) by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (the future final judgement).
    ___________________

    About the theory in the video you said:

    everything he said is physically possible except there is no way it happened within the last 100 thousand years.

    On what evidence do you base this statement?

    There is probably 50 thousand scientist that could prove his time span is wrong to every 1 scientist that is driven by tradition to force their findings.

    If they could prove it, he would be wrong. The mere fact that the vast majority thinks he is wrong, does not mean, he is wrong.

    The vast majority of christian stands united against your and my conviction, that only the Father is truely God. That does not prove us wrong.

  242. on 07 Aug 2010 at 4:22 pmrobert

    “to your answer 1: It still does not explain, why that could not be achieved far more reasonably by Noah and his family leaving that region for one year and than going back.”

    Silke
    Actually it does completely explained it, you just chose not to accept it.

    “Your answer 2 does not deal with the purpose stated in Gen. 6-9, e.g.”

    Silke
    Maybe you should read Gen1 &2 over again to find what group was created and who was formed.
    then you should read through the whole bible using the word for earth in hebrew to see if it is used for small areas as well as large but hardly ever used to describe the whole earth as we understand it in modern days

    “Robert, the account of the flood is either the true account of a historical worldwide flood or it is a myth.”

    Silke
    actually your view is the one that turns it into a myth, Mine is back by science,ancient writings and histories

    “To me the meaning of 2 Peter 3, 5-7 is clearly the following:”

    Silke
    Yes to you and many others who find this understanding a sacred cow.

    “If they could prove it, he would be wrong. The mere fact that the vast majority thinks he is wrong, does not mean, he is wrong.”

    Silke
    actually if HE could prove it he would be right but there is no way on Gods green earth that he could. there are very good reasons that exist within physics why he is absolutely wrong on the timetable and even a first year physics student can explain the flaw.

  243. on 07 Aug 2010 at 4:38 pmSilke

    Robert (#239)

    I admit, I am not sure about the answer to your question:

    Just how does this Matthew 25:31-46 even resemble Rev 20 :4?

    For now, I would argue like that:

    I will start from a clear statement:

    1 Thess 4, 16
    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

    And than try to understand the more pictorial one, namely Mt 25, 31-46.

    One possiblity – the one you suggest – seems wrong to me:

    why do people not see the resurrection of those in Christ as the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 which doesnt occur till after the 1000 years.

    The answer is clear from Scripture:

    Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

    Romans 8,1 – to name just one – makes it clear that those being condemned (Mt. 25,46) cannot be part of the “those who are in Christ Jesus”.

    But where does Mt 25 fit into Revelation?

    Could it be, that Jesus is talking about the millennium, when he (and his people) will judge the earth? As far as I remember, you pointed out yourself somewhere, that there will be humans who survive naturally until that time. These are not “those in Christ”, because those will meet Jesus at his return via rapture.

    Therefore the ones still alive naturally do not know Jesus personally; yet some of them did do what is right. Namely, they showed kindness to his followers (verse 40 Jesus pointing at his desciples who are now reigning with him: unto one of the least of these my brethren). Doing so would be especially remarkable in the last days with its tribulations.

    I might be wrong … maybe someone has a better understanding?

  244. on 07 Aug 2010 at 4:57 pmrobert

    “I will start from a clear statement:

    1 Thess 4, 16
    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

    And than try to understand the more pictorial one, namely Mt 25, 31-46.

    One possiblity – the one you suggest – seems wrong to me:

    why do people not see the resurrection of those in Christ as the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 which doesnt occur till after the 1000 years.

    The answer is clear from Scripture:

    Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

    Romans 8,1 – to name just one – makes it clear that those being condemned (Mt. 25,46) cannot be part of the “those who are in Christ Jesus”.”

    Silke
    Reading Rev20 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    You find those in christ are written in the Lambs book of life and those condemned are written in the other books known as the book of the dead.
    This verse puts Mt. 25,46 coming after the 1000 years Sabbath in which those raised will be judged by the apostles not Jesus.

    “As far as I remember, you pointed out yourself somewhere, that there will be humans who survive naturally until that time.”

    Silke
    Just because the Kingdom of New Israel will be established during Gods Sabbath rest where Jesus will sit upon Gods throne in HEAVEN NOT EARTH ruling all nations as King of kings it doesnt mean that life as we know it wont continue for those living who didnt meet the requirements for citizenship in the New Israel. But that dont mean that during their life they cant take hold of the covenant made with Israel and become a citizen.

  245. on 07 Aug 2010 at 5:04 pmrobert

    “This verse puts Mt. 25,46 coming after the 1000 years Sabbath in which those raised will be judged by the apostles not Jesus.”

    Silke
    I would like to add to this statement that the apostles will on be judging the least from the greatest not matters of salvation.

    In the promise of salvation there is no difference between anyone ,No least,no greatest , no death like we see in the 1000 year Sabbath rest where it is said the second death will have no power. this statement about the second death shows they can die but will be raised to salvation when it comes

  246. on 11 Aug 2010 at 4:20 pmSilke

    Hi Robert,

    as I just wrote in the other thread where we were discussing: I don’t see us right now getting anywhere, so that it would justify further replies from my side.

    Thank you for sharing your view. May God bless you!

  247. on 11 Aug 2010 at 4:29 pmrobert

    Silke
    Thank you for sharing yours.
    Whenever you want we can discuss this or any other topics. The point of the discussions are not to convert, they are so we can get a better understanding of the truth.
    God has already blessed Me.
    So may God continue to bless all his children.

  248. on 18 Sep 2010 at 5:22 pmBible Study

    Here is my answer to this question. I am sure that salvation comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ, not by our own works of righteousness in the flesh. I just wish everyone else could see this truth. I think they get hung up on the commandments of God and seek to keep them by their own works, and not by faith alone in Jesus. For those who do so, please consider this, consider your ways. The bible,for example, commands us not to lie. 1 John 2:22 tells us a liar is one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, when we believe he is the Christ, we are no longer liars according to the biblical definition of a liar in 1 John. All the commandments are kept like this one through faith in Jesus. When we believe in him, we fulfill the commandments of God which are telling us to believe Jesus is the Christ, for example we are not to lie, or deny that Jesus is the Christ in unbelief. In other words, the commandment not to lie is a commandment not to deny Jesus is the Christ, but a commandment to believe he indeed is. For it is through faith we are saved. This is God’s commandment, to believe on Jesus and abide in the faith. To see other commandments according to the biblical interpretation by rightly dividing the word of truth, please visit this bible study website. Another example, we are commanded not to steal. If we steal, we are thieves, but if not we are not thieves. In John chapter 10, Jesus told us to seek salvation any other way than through him makes us thieves. Therefore, when we climb up through faith in Jesus alone, we are not theives who steal, spiritually speaking of course, for the law of God is spiritual according to Romans 7:14. The entire bible is spiritual and is not given for private intepretation based on our own natural wisdom and understanding. We are to let God define the words of the bible. Jude speaks of those who are carnally, or naturally minded.

  249. on 22 Sep 2010 at 3:21 amwilson

    Matthew 7:12

  250. on 23 Oct 2012 at 2:35 pmWolfgang

    @Anonymous
    you write above

    Therefore Galatians 5:18′s “not under the law” and similar verses such as “released or freed from the law” CAN ONLY REFER TO NO LONGER BEING UNDER THE PENALTY PART OF THE LAW, NOT THE OBEDIENCE PART OF THE LAW.

    To put it in more clear words, are you saying:
    We should obey the law, but if we don’t, we are not suffering the penalties prescribed by the law? in other words, now we can disobey the law without needing to be concerned about any penalty?

    If you are not saying that, could you clarify what you are saying with your distinction between “penalty part” and “obedience part” of the law?

  251. on 27 Oct 2012 at 11:35 amJas

    Wolfgang
    I think he/she stopped reading at that verse. Verse 21 is very clear there is a penalty for breaking commandments that are clearly defined in OT law. This penalty is the very same as the one given to the Israelites. But do not mix this up with Grace that was a gift to all mankind because Jesus redeemed ALL from the SIN of Adam allowing them to stand in judgement before the Great White Throne with Jesus as mediator for sins against love.

  252. on 28 Oct 2012 at 9:03 pmJas

    To answer Brian’s question the relevance depends on what part of the inheritance one chooses . If the blessing to all families of the earth which is the gift of Grace is all you seek than nothing other than how you treat others is relevant cause Grace allows for you to be judged by you own actions not Adam’s .However if you seek the promises of possession of all shown to Abraham then you need to figure out what changed to cause the covenant to need re-ratification. The answers to this is found in Jer 31:31-33, all of Hebrews especially Heb 8:10, 10:16 then to find out to who this renewed covenant is with go to all of Romans especially Rom.9:25-26 then to Hosea 1;10-11 ,2:23 to understand it was the Northern Kingdom (10 lost tribes) that will again be called HIS people. So if you want to be called HIS people you must join yourself to the people of the promise or realize your bloodline then take hold of the words of the covenant that havent been fulfilled yet. The sacrifice ,high priesthood and the temple plus how the WORD is given are the only things changed by the renewed covenant . So either accept only Grace as your inheritance or choose the Reward plus Grace offered to his covenant people

  253. on 29 Oct 2012 at 3:57 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Jas,
    I’m not sure if you have posted before or not so Welcome to K.R.!!! You talk about the Reward plus grace. It seems that you believe that if you want to partake of the land promises made to Abraham then you need more than just grace. Is that correct???

  254. on 29 Oct 2012 at 5:01 pmJas

    TY for welcome
    Grace is the removal of certain eternal death because of one man’s sin. Some people equate death with the physical but true death is of the soul. When the physical ceases the soul returns to the Creator,this soul can be given another body but to do so it first must be judged .Adam’s sin caused mankind to need a mediator between them and the Creator ,without this mediator there can be no standing in the presence of the Creator.When Jesus did what Adam couldn’t he became that mediator saving all mankind from Adam’s time to present from certain eternal death.
    In the Creators plan for this mediator to be born He made several promises to a certain separated bloodline starting with Eve and ending with David,these promises had a special reward which were unconditional to Abraham ,Isaac , Jacob ,Judah and Joseph but were conditional of all other offspring after them which several met the conditions like David
    lts very hard to rightly divide the promise of the blessing to all people which is Grace from the promise to possess all the land shown to Abraham which we know never happened in his first life.
    So I see no other conclusion.

  255. on 29 Oct 2012 at 7:58 pmDoubting Thomas

    Jas,
    My friend Robert believes the same thing. That’s why I sort of knew what it was you were talking about (even though you were being somewhat cryptic… 🙂 ). I think that you and Robert could very well be right that something more is required to get the land promised under the Abraham Covenant. After all the land promised is very limited and could only hold a certain number of people. I don’t think that everyone that has ever attained salvation from the beginning of time untill now could fit into this relatively small parcel of land.

    So it does make sense that it would be reserved for a special group of people that will not only attain salvation, but will get to live close to Jerusalem. Where Y’shua will be ruling over the entire world as our Lord and King…

  256. on 30 Oct 2012 at 1:57 amWolfgang

    @Doubting Thomas

    you mention above

    After all the land promised is very limited and could only hold a certain number of people. I don’t think that everyone that has ever attained salvation from the beginning of time untill now could fit into this relatively small parcel of land.

    i would suggest that the land promise re the earthly land was fulfilled already long time ago … cp. what we read in Joshua 21:43

    Josh 21:43 (KJV)
    And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

    Josh 21:43 (NASB)
    So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.

    We are rather plainly told that the LORD God gave Israel at the time of Joshua already ALL (note, it does not say “some”, “a token of”, “a portion of”, “a little bit of”, etc.) the land which He had sworn to give unto their fathers (of whom Abraham is the prominent one). The land promise has already been fulfilled long time ago … as we are plainly told in the Scriptures themselves!

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  257. on 30 Oct 2012 at 9:09 amXavier

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5ZhQG6OZI&feature=plcp

  258. on 30 Oct 2012 at 9:23 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    I disagree.

    [8] For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.
    [9] So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God

    (Hbr 4:8-9 ESV)

    [10] Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD.
    [11] And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.
    [12] And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”

    (Zec 2:10-12 ESV)

  259. on 30 Oct 2012 at 9:48 amSean

    All of these were written after they had inherited the land under Joshua:

    Matthew 5.5
    Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

    Revelation 5.10
    You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.

    Daniel 7.27
    Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.

    Isaiah 60.20-21
    20 Your sun will no longer set, Nor will your moon wane; For you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, And the days of your mourning will be over. 21 Then all your people will be righteous; They will possess the land forever, The branch of My planting, The work of My hands, That I may be glorified.

    Jeremiah 23.5-6, 8
    5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. 6 “In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; …8 Then they will live on their own soil.”

    Isaiah 35.1-10
    1 The wilderness and the desert will be glad, And the Arabah will rejoice and blossom; Like the crocus 2 It will blossom profusely And rejoice with rejoicing and shout of joy. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, The majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They will see the glory of the LORD, The majesty of our God. 3 Encourage the exhausted, and strengthen the feeble. 4 Say to those with anxious heart, “Take courage, fear not. Behold, your God will come with vengeance; The recompense of God will come, But He will save you.” 5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. 6 Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness And streams in the Arabah. 7 The scorched land will become a pool And the thirsty ground springs of water; In the haunt of jackals, its resting place, Grass becomes reeds and rushes. 8 A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it. 9 No lion will be there, Nor will any vicious beast go up on it; These will not be found there. But the redeemed will walk there, 10 And the ransomed of the LORD will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, With everlasting joy upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

    Isaiah 2.2-4
    2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.

    Isaiah 11.6-10
    6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7 Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. 9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. 10 Then in that day The nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious.

    Ezekiel 36.24-28
    24 “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28 “You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

    Ezekiel 37.24-27
    24 “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. 25 “They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. 26 “I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. 27 “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.

    Ezekiel 37.12-14
    “Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 “Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 “I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.'”

    Daniel 2.35, 44
    35 “Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. …44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

  260. on 30 Oct 2012 at 2:02 pmXavier

    Sean

    This is interesting also:

    I do not want you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved.

    Romans 11.25-26

  261. on 30 Oct 2012 at 2:33 pmWolfgang

    @Sean,

    with your whole list of verses, are we to interpret them in a manner which would contradict the rather plain statement in Joshua 21:43?
    or are we to interpret them in a manner which would consider their contexts more carefully and which would keep them in harmony with the plain statement in Joshua 21:43?

    I’d think the latter is the correct approach …

  262. on 30 Oct 2012 at 2:38 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah

    did you miss that Josh 21:43 is not speaking about “rest” but about “having given them ALL the land” which God had promised and sworn to the fathers (of whom Abraham is certainly the most prominent)?

    Should we interpret the sections from Heb 4 and Zec 2 which you mention above in a manner in which they would contradict the plain statement in Joshua 21:43? or should we interpret them in a manner in which they are in harmony with other scriptures such as the plain statement in Josh 21:43?

    I am in favor of the latter approach …

  263. on 30 Oct 2012 at 5:29 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Have you considered that the promise was not only made to Abraham but to his Seed? Paul tells us this is Christ, and as far as I know Jesus has not yet received the land on this earth that was promised to him.

  264. on 30 Oct 2012 at 5:53 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Sean provided you with verses that show the promise was physical all the way up to NT.
    There are many verses in the history of Israel that show they never possessed ALL the land even up to the time of David. Jerusalem wasnt possessed till David conquered some 300 years after Joshua wrote. But where you are really missing the point is God Promised Abraham that he would possess it which we know he was only a stranger in the land while he was alive.
    The Mosaic covenant promised Israel would possess it if they would be obedient so if we ignore all the history and accept that one verse you base ALL on then just how does that change the Promise made to Abraham ,Isaac ,Jacob and Joseph that they would possess ALL the Land shown to Abraham when he told him to look to the north,south,east and west which only exist upon this earth.

  265. on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:30 amWolfgang

    @Sarah
    yes, I have considered those details as well …

    and I repeat, I would not want to interpret scriptures such as those mentioned by Sean in a manner in which they contradict the plain statement in Josh 21:43. Are you suggesting that the statements made in Joshua 21:43 are in error?

  266. on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:40 amWolfgang

    @Jas

    Joshua 21:43 states the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham and his descendants. Are the terms used in those statements not clear and plain?

    Other verses, such as the ones in the long list Sean provided, need to be understood and interpreted in harmony with the plain truth stated alreay in Joshua 21:43.

    Illustration:
    I promise you that I will give you something, then sometime later I give it to you and you have received it. You write me a note and acknowledge that you received what I had promised. Then later on you do certain things with what you were given, you perhaps lose it, and then find it again, and use it in different situations, etc, etc.
    Now, can I take a statement such as “I have not found that thing from Wolfgang” which you make some time after you had lost it, as a “proof” that the promise I had made was not already fulfilled? No, such interpretation would be incorrect, because I would disregard other statements which state that you already did receive the promised item and that therefore my promise had already been fulfilled. I would need to interpret your later statement correctly rather than disregarding context and trying to make it fit some other concepts I may have in mind

  267. on 31 Oct 2012 at 9:19 amJas

    Wolfgang
    There were no conditions applied to the promises of the Abrahamic covenant which means it can not be annulled ever till it is accomplished to all it was promised . Even though the Mosaic had promise of the same land it was conditional upon obedience .So even if the whole land was possessed by Israel it can not annul the Abrahamic covenant that promisesd Abraham,Isaac and Jacob they would possess and live there on ALL the land shown themselves .So the verse you quote that you base all on is of very little importance even if it is original .

  268. on 31 Oct 2012 at 9:45 amWolfgang

    @Jas

    do you somehow not get it that Josh 21:43 plainly states that God at the time of Joshua had fulfilled His land promise (cp. “given them ALL the land”) which God had promised and even sworn to give to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ?
    Are you suggesting to disregard the plain statement in Josh 21:43?

    The matter is rather simple and there is no need to complicate it in the manner in which you try to interpret it, thereby effectively contradicting what the verse states

  269. on 31 Oct 2012 at 9:49 amWolfgang

    @Jas

    in addition … I did not say anything about the Abrahamic covenant being “annulled”, rather I observe from Josh 21:43 that the Scriptures state plainly that the land promise / covenant was fulfilled.

    I am in favor of understanding and interpreting the Scriptures in light of their overall scope and context, etc in a manner which does not cause contradictions. Now, you seem to adhere to an interpretation of the covenant and land promise God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which contradicts what Josh 21:43 states. Why should I go by an interpretation that makes for contradictions?

  270. on 31 Oct 2012 at 12:57 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Are you suggesting we disregard portions of the promise that have not been fulfilled?

    Gen 17:8: “And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

    The rest of the OT, as well as the NT, make quite clear that Joshua 21:43 was not the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise. Else how do you explain that the land has yet to be given to Abraham’s Seed, who is Christ? And how do you explain that the land was to be an everlasting possession of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., who aren’t yet able to possess it everlastingly because they are all dead?

  271. on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:56 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah,

    The rest of the OT, as well as the NT, make quite clear that Joshua 21:43 was not the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise.

    You say it was not the complete fulfillment …
    Josh 21.43 says that God had given them (Abraham’s descendants) “ALL THE LAND” which He had promised and even sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob …
    So then, what are we to do?

    Also, how can there even be “partial fulfillments” of something that has been promised ? Either what has been promised has been fulfilled or it hasn’t! Same with prophecy … either what a prophet prophesied did come to pass or it hasn’t come to pass (there is no “half way come to pass”, or “partly come to pass” in Scripture … IF there were, one could not determine a true prophet from a false prophet (cp what Deu has to say about that)

  272. on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:01 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah,

    Are you suggesting we disregard portions of the promise that have not been fulfilled?

    As far as the land promise is concerned, Josh21:43 plainly declares that there are no portions which are not fulfilled … “ALL the land had been given which God had sworn to the fathers” !
    I am by no means suggesting to disregard any part of Scripture, but rather to understand and interpret it in a manner which does not cause contradictions within the Scriptures but which is in harmony with Scripture overall

  273. on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:23 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    I don’t see where you have addressed the fact that the land was promised Christ. Do you dispute Paul’s interpretation that the promises were made both to Abraham AND to Christ himself? With respect, your opinion that Joshua 21:43 precludes any future inheritance of the land for God’s people is that which is not in harmony with Scripture overall.

  274. on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:33 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Your are mixing up the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant with the PERSONAL covenant with Abraham. Even if Josh21:43 was true which is very doubtful then the possession of all the land has no effect on the promise that Abraham himself would possess and live on the land shown to him which we know that he only lived on it as a stranger I never said you said the Mosaic annulled the Abrahamic covenant but your claim is not worthy unless it did annul it.

  275. on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:39 pmJas

    Sarah
    Nowhere does it state the land promise was only to the Christ, you have mixed up the plural use of offspring in the land promise with the singular use when it states in your offspring all families on earth would be blessed.

  276. on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:20 pmSarah

    Jas,

    Actually I didn’t say the land promise was *only* to Christ. But it certainly was made to Christ himself in addition to Abraham. And those land promises which were made to Christ are also given to all those who are “in Christ”. Paul puts it this way:

    Gal 3:16, 29 (KJV): “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ….And if ye [be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

    And so my question to Wolfgang is what he does with this fact that Jesus Christ is the primary co-heir alongside Abraham of the land promises which were made in Genesis 17:8.

  277. on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:26 pmJas

    “And those land promises which were made to Christ are also given to all those who are “in Christ”. Paul puts it this way:

    Gal 3:16, 29 (KJV): “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ….And if ye [be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.””

    Sarah
    Paul never mentions the land promise in this verse , he only mentions the blessing which is Grace that allows salvation.
    There were more than one promise made to Abraham and heirs according to the promise only refers to one of them

  278. on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:42 pmSarah

    Jas,

    The fact that Paul doesn’t specifically mention the land promise in no way proves that it was somehow excluded from Christ. Paul clearly identifies Christ as the offspring mentioned in the promises, and that offspring is clearly heir to the land. There are plenty of other passages which reiterate this. Here are just a few.

    Psa 2:7-8: “I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.”

    Mat 21:33: “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country….But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.'”

  279. on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:55 pmJas

    Sarah
    Psa 2:7-8 is not speaking of Jesus alone but to the office of Annointed Kings which Jesus was the last anointed .
    You are mixed up that I am claiming Jesus was excluded when I know for a fact that he will reign over the future kingdom.
    I am saying tht no where no way is paul refering to the land promise in those verses but is refering to the blessing to all families of the earth which he will mediate eternal life at the Great White Throne for those that call upon him . This happens 1000 years after the promise of the land is fulfilled

  280. on 01 Nov 2012 at 2:57 amWolfgang

    @Sarah, Jas

    with all the back and forth, you seem to be quite content with contradicting what Josh 21:43 says … why? why want to cling to a concept based on an interpretation of other verses which makes for contradictions in the Scripture?

    I think Jas is pointing out an important detail regarding Abraham’s “seed” (descendants) and that the interpretation given to the Gal passage by Sarah is not necessarily correct … it’s the context which needs to be observed more carefully. Should we really think that Paul was not aware of what the OT Scripture in Josh 21:43 stated regarding the fulfillment of the “land promise” God had sworn to the fathers?

    I would also caution to interpret statements in verses without proper consideration as to when they were made and to whom they were made, and thereby linking things together as if they were dealing with one identical matter when in truth they obviously are dealing with seperate and perhaps only similar matters …

  281. on 01 Nov 2012 at 8:21 amJas

    Wolfgang
    There are dozens of verses throughout the history of Israel that clearly contradict Josh 21:43 like the conquer of Jerusalem and all the verses Sean quoted from the Prophets.
    So Why? because given the evidence its the only conclusion.

  282. on 01 Nov 2012 at 11:02 amSarah

    Jas,

    I am saying tht no where no way is paul refering to the land promise in those verses but is refering to the blessing to all families of the earth which he will mediate eternal life at the Great White Throne for those that call upon him

    My point is simply that Paul referred to the “promises” (plural) made to Abraham and his offspring. This is an all-inclusive statement. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this issue 🙂

  283. on 01 Nov 2012 at 11:47 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    The main reason I disagree with your position is that the New Testament very specifically addresses Joshua 21:43-44 to let us know that it is is not the end of the story in terms of the land inheritance (often just referred to as the “inheritance”). Many, many other verses have already been cited that explicitly support this understanding.

    Unless you can make a solid scriptural case that Jesus is NOT the heir of the land, I think we have reached an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

  284. on 01 Nov 2012 at 12:41 pmXavier

    All this talk of the Kingdom now is really pedestrian. Just turn on your news channel and tell me if that is the Kingdom of God. :/

  285. on 01 Nov 2012 at 1:46 pmWolfgang

    @Jas,

    There are dozens of verses throughout the history of Israel that clearly contradict Josh 21:43 like the conquer of Jerusalem and all the verses Sean quoted from the Prophets.
    So Why? because given the evidence its the only conclusion.

    I’d say that there are NO verses which contradict Josh 21:43 … any supposed contradictions of Josh 21:43 are because of certain opinions and interpretations of other scriptures. When the context and overall scope of the Scriptures is properly considered and taken into account, those other scriptures are shown to not be contradictory in the first place.

  286. on 01 Nov 2012 at 2:01 pmDr Ali

    Interesting topic and good discussion so far .

    I want to share my views on it. First i will share what scholars say about the same topic

    Professor Graham Stanton’s critically acclaimed book The Gospels and Jesus, Oxford University Press, 2002, is a scholarly work on the expanding field of historical Jesus , who he was and what he taught during his ministry on earth.

    This is what Graham Stanton says in this book..

    “The key to the story is the ending. Jesus went up to Jerusalem for the last time not simply in order to ‘minister’ to its inhabitants. He went to Jerusalem in order to confront the religio-political establishment with his claim that the kingdom of God was at hand. On the basis of his convictions about the presence, power, and will of God, Jesus called for a reordering of Israel’s priorities. In that sense HE SOUGHT THE RENEWAL OF JUDAISM.

    Renewal movements generally involve a the discovery of basic principles and a call for loyalty to an inherited tradition. The ‘Jesus movement’ was no exception. In due course what Jesus and his followers intended as a ‘recall to basics‘ led to the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism – but that is another story.

    JESUS CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO FOUND A NEW RELIGION. He did not repudiate Scripture, though on occasion he emphasized some Scriptural principles at the expense of others.

    WITH A FEW A RARE EXCEPTIONS HE DID NOT CALL IN QUESTION THE LAW OF MOSES. But he did challenge established conventions and priorities. Jesus believed that he had been sent by God as a prophet to declare authoritatively the will of God for his people: acceptance or rejection of him and his message was equivalent to acceptance or rejection of God.”

    Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus pp.269-270, Oxford University Press, 2002.

    Any scholar dealing with the same topic will agree to the same .

    Coming on to Matthew 5:17-19 , why it was written and what does it signify THE NEW JEROME BIBLICAL COMMENTARY says the following .

    “The problem arises because the plain sense of the words is that Jesus affirms the abiding validity of the Torah; but this contradicts Paul. There are contradictions within the NT on penultimate matters.’ Matthew 5:17-20 was written ‘against the Hellenizing Christians, particularly Paul and his followers’. ”

    NJBC p.641

    My view is that Jesus did upheld the law of Moses and clearly asked to follow it IRRESPECTIVE WHETHER YOU ARE A JEW OR NOT.

    He says in verse 19

    “ANYONE who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but WHOEVER practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    See he says ANYONE who breaks it will be called least and WHOEVER practices and teaches will be called great in kingdom of God .

  287. on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:55 pmWolfgang

    @Xavier

    All this talk of the Kingdom now is really pedestrian. Just turn on your news channel and tell me if that is the Kingdom of God. :/

    have you ever considered that the premise of your idea of what the kingdom of God is might be faulty?
    Jesus was born and lived “at the end of the world”, he – as well as John the baptist just prior to him – declared that the kingdom of God was at hand. If Jesus was right, the kingdom of God would long have been established because “at hand” is no period of time of about two thousand years !

    I gather from your comment above that you regard Jesus to have been “pedestrian” not knowing what he was talking about? And all, just because you have a different idea from Christ’s about what the kingdom of God is about

  288. on 01 Nov 2012 at 5:35 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    I gather from your comment above that you regard Jesus to have been “pedestrian” not knowing what he was talking about?

    I said this whole DISCUSSION is “pedestrian”.

    What does the KOG mean for me? Immortal life in a renewed, restored world! 😉

  289. on 01 Nov 2012 at 6:17 pmJas

    Sarah
    Actually the english interpretation gives the plural but without reason .

    Wolfgang
    When was Jerusalem conquered by Israel ? Was not Jerusalem part of the land shown to Abraham?
    The truth is history contradicts 21:43 not interpretation.

    Dr. Ali
    TY for sharing that, I also agree that Jesus upheld the Law of Moses, lived it, taught it, died to fulfill the sacrificial aspects, was anointed King by it, was anointed prophet by it, was anointed High Priest by it and worked to separate it from the Oral Law. The only thing I disgree with is that Matthew was wrote against hellenizing christians. I believe it was wrote to the first christians in hebrew then translated and Interpretated into greek form the best that Justin could do.

  290. on 01 Nov 2012 at 7:28 pmtimothy

    Dr Ali,

    Nice to see you participate in KR discussions.

    Timothy <3

  291. on 01 Nov 2012 at 7:43 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I am starting to understand that you believe hat the Kingdom has already come. My guess is you claim it came in 70 AD.
    Now I see why you need this verse to have that belief.
    In your conversation above you are stuck on “at hand” which you claim could not be 2000 years because who it was spoken to, but what you dont take into account is this was almost 100 % jewish audience. One of the signs that was given to this audience was the sign of Jonah who preached to Nineveh that destruction was at hand if they didnt repent their evil ways but it never came because they repented. I would say never is a longer period of time than 2000 years. If the jews would of repented in 1st century than the kingdom would of come and Israel would of been gathered from among the gentile nations but they didnt and what is worst is they denied their King who was the prophet who preached both the Kingdom coming in their lifetime if they repented and also preached their destruction if they didnt.If the kingdom would of come Israel would of been victorious over there oppressor but since it didnt they met destruction equal to what happened to the northern kingdom in 722BC and southern kingdom in 586BC.
    You belief almost goes against ever prophet’s prophecies about the end days.

  292. on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:11 amWolfgang

    @Jas

    One of the signs that was given to this audience was the sign of Jonah who preached to Nineveh that destruction was at hand if they didnt repent their evil ways but it never came because they repented. I would say never is a longer period of time than 2000 years.

    you are equating incorrectly here ….
    Jonah prophesied their imminent destruction within 40 days … do 40 days not qualify for “at hand”? That their destruction did not “soon” / “at hand” come was due to their repentance.
    Now, the Jews of Jesus’ day were given “the sign of Jonah” … they had a prophet greater than Jonah who prophesied their last day and judgment also as being “at hand” … as we know from history it was 40 years (cp. the 40 “days” of Jonah’s prophecy against Niniveh in the sign as being counted one day for one year) And yes, Israel did not repent (unlike Niniveh), so the end of the age, the last day and judgment did come “soon” as prophesied.

    My understanding does not go against every prophet’s propheces about the end days, but it certainly goes against many interpreters’ misinterpretation of every prophet’s prophecy concerning the end of the age, the last day, etc … seeing that they do not keep things within their biblical context and scope and misinterpret prophecies as if they applied to our day and time as if we lived in the last days of planet earth or something …

  293. on 02 Nov 2012 at 8:45 amXavier

    Jas

    If the jews would of repented in 1st century than the kingdom would of come…

    Not according to NT scripture like Romans 11.25-26 and all the “signs” [Mat 24] and personages [Anti-Christ, 1-2Thess] that need to appear before then.

  294. on 02 Nov 2012 at 9:10 amWolfgang

    @Xavier

    while we do not know what would have happened if the Jews in the 1stcentury AD had repented and accepted the Messiah, we certainly can know what did happen and what had been prophesied and how it came to pass.

    Was the kingdom to be established at the end of the world, after the judgement of the last day? or was it to be established before the judgment of the last day?
    Was the kingdom of heaven to be established during the time of the 4th kingdom prophesied in Daniel?
    Was Christ born at the beginning of the age, sometime during the time of the age, or in the end of the age ?

    Plain statements of Scripture will give you the answers to these questions. Properly considering the answers to these questions will provide you with the overall picture / scope regarding the matter of the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God

  295. on 02 Nov 2012 at 9:42 amJas

    Wolfgang
    All that came was judgement in 70 AD not the Kingdom. I use clear verses that describe the end of days which can not be read in context of the whole Bible any other way.
    You have just mixed up the 2 options in the sign of Jonah by uniting them into one thing. Nineveh’s END was at hand but never came as spoken by Jonah making God a liar if you dont understand there was 2 options which by the way wasnt let known then,just the END one was.
    Why would you use an optional reference like the sign of Jonah then only accept one of the options. What purpose did the 40 years accomplish. Did Judah repent? NO Did those that surrounded the Holy City have their Arrows fall to the Ground as prophesied? NO
    Did Israel spend 7 years burying them ? NO
    The important thing to remember about the sign of Jonah to Nineveh is God provided them 2 options but at that time they only hoped there was a 2nd option but Jesus and his Jewish audience knew there was 2 options but the jews chose the destruction because they didnt repent

  296. on 02 Nov 2012 at 9:54 amJas

    Xavier
    do you understand cause and effect?
    what you say doesnt take that into account. If the Jews would of repented it could of caused those things to happen then but since they didnt repent these thing didnt come about . Just as God knew that Nineveh would repent he also knew that the jews wouldnt.

  297. on 02 Nov 2012 at 11:50 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    have you noticed that it’s always the others who “have mixed up” something ? Could it be that you perhaps are the one who is mixed up on a few things and because of that what others write appears to you mixed up ?

  298. on 02 Nov 2012 at 3:50 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Yes there is always the possibilty, i have been wrong before but i dont think this is one of those times because the verses and historical evidence are very strong.
    Have you given yourself the same test?

  299. on 02 Nov 2012 at 3:55 pmWolfgang

    @Jas,

    according to your estimation then Josh 21:43 is in error … and your proof is what you know and perceive as “historical evidence” ?

    As for the test, I don’t even need to give myself such test … almost everybody else here and other places gives it to me all the time 😉

  300. on 02 Nov 2012 at 4:10 pmJas

    Yes i believe that verse is in error maybe on purpose or maybe a scribal error.One thing for sure it is contradicted by verses in Joshua and other historical books of the OT and also even if it is true is witnessed in the prphets that it has no effect on the end days
    A self test can be more trying on a belief but yes places like this do help a person test their belief .

  301. on 02 Nov 2012 at 7:53 pmJas

    Joshua 21:43

    –wbsyw, to dwell, remain, sit, abide
    –hwsryw ,possess , conquer , take possession ,
    –Mtwbal , Father
    –ttl , gave, assigned,provided
    –ebsn , promised, swore
    –rsa , that,which
    –Urah ,Land
    –lk, all
    –ta , the
    –larvyl , Israelhwhy, YHWH
    –Ntyw , gave, assigned,provided

    this verse could read “YHWH (gave,assigned,provided) Israel all the land that HE (YHWH) promised to give the Fathers to possess and dwell in.
    Even if it should be “they possessed and dwelt in it” you can not ignore that YHWH promised to give this land to the Fathers which was never fulfilled according to Joshua in this verse.
    I noticed you used an interpretation that TRIED to hide this FACT

  302. on 04 Nov 2012 at 4:04 pmJas

    “ANYONE who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but WHOEVER practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Dr Ali
    Within this verse there is a contrast set between the least and the great and in Rev 20:12 there is also a contrast being set between the small and the great.The word for great in Rev 20 is the very same greek word used in Matt but the word for small is not but carries the exact same meaning as the word for least in Matt. Both words are used interchangeably by many writers in NT and greek writings.
    What is your opinion on Rev 20 contrasting those that do and teach the commandments as the great and those that dont and teach others the same as the small.
    To me this shows that everyone even the elect has to stand before the Great White Throne for judgement to receive eternal life.
    Considering during the 1000 years it is said that the second death has no power over them means they can die but will receive eternal life at judgement after the 1000 years

  303. on 05 Nov 2012 at 12:00 pmJas

    268 Wolfgang
    @Jas

    do you somehow not get it that Josh 21:43 plainly states that God at the time of Joshua had fulfilled His land promise (cp. “given them ALL the land”) which God had promised and even sworn to give to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ?
    Are you suggesting to disregard the plain statement in Josh 21:43?

    Wolfgang
    in post 301 i accussed you of using a translation that hid the facts but reading back you first used a proper translation so sorry for that.

    But using the proper translation just how do you not see the fact that ” God had promised and even sworn to give to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ” in your satement.
    When was this promise fulfilled to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ??

  304. on 05 Nov 2012 at 2:00 pmWolfgang

    @Jas

    But using the proper translation just how do you not see the fact that ” God had promised and even sworn to give to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ” in your satement.
    When was this promise fulfilled to “the fathers” (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) ??

    God had made the promise and made an oath to the fathers. The land was promised to the fathers “and their descendants” … therefore, reading the Scriptures which speak about the descendants entering the land and God’s Word declaring that at that time they had received “ALL the land which God had sworn to the fathers”, it seems clear to me that the promise was fulfilled so to say “in the descendants”.

    Someone promises something “to you and your descendants”, and then it takes perhaps several years for the promise to come to pass, I pass in the meantime but then my son receives what had been promised, the promise actually having been given me, but included not only me but also my descendants. Now then, because I died in the meantime, was the promise not fulfilled to my son, just as it had been promised to me?

    Reading the statement of the fulfillment shows me that my previous (and your current) understanding of the promise still not being fulfilled, because the fathers themselves did not receive the promise is incorrect. The correct understanding is that the promise made to the fathers was not fulfilled in their lifetime but was fulfilled to their descendants, just as God had sworn to the fathers already, when He did NOT make a promise just “to you [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]”, but God included in the promise “your descendants”, and it was during the time of their descendants, that the land promise was fulfilled.

    That the descendants forfeited what they had received due to their idolatry is another story …

  305. on 05 Nov 2012 at 2:16 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    The correct understanding is that the promise made to the fathers was not fulfilled in their lifetime but was fulfilled to their descendants, just as God had sworn to the fathers already, when He did NOT make a promise just “to you [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]“, but God included in the promise “your descendants”, and it was during the time of their descendants, that the land promise was fulfilled.

    The land promise made to the fathers (Abe, Isaac & Jacob) was not fulfilled in their lifetime? I couldn’t agree more. But if God makes a promise to a person *and* that person’s offspring, mustn’t he fulfill the promise that person *as well as* that person’s offspring? Otherwise God has broken his promise to that person.

    Rom 4:13: “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.”

    Abraham did not inherit the world during his lifetime. He lived in the land of promise as a “stranger and exile” rather than possessing it as the owner. But he maintained faith in a future resurrection that would make his possession of the land a possibility, which Jesus alluded to in John 8:56.

  306. on 05 Nov 2012 at 2:31 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah,

    But if God makes a promise to a person *and* that person’s offspring, mustn’t he fulfill the promise that person *as well as* that person’s offspring? Otherwise God has broken his promise to that person.

    No, God has not broken His promise to that person, because He did not make the promise just to the person but to the person and their descendants … in this case the promise was – as Josh 21:43 states (!) – fulfilled to the descendants.

    No, God must obviously not fulfill His promise to “the person *as well as* that person’s offspring” … in light of Josh 21:43, such an idea (which, by the way, I too believed in for many years) of “as well as” is incorrect. God may fulfill His promise to *either* the person or the person’s offspring.

  307. on 05 Nov 2012 at 2:35 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah,

    also note, God only made the promise to the fathers … thus, IF we were to really apply that idea of “as well as” then already the statement concerning to whom the promise was made would be false. God actually made the promise to the fathers (initially to Abraham, then He repeated it to Isaac and also to Jacob), but the fulfillment was to be to the descendants … Else, why even mention them in the promise, seeing that they were not the ones to whom God spoke making the promise?

  308. on 05 Nov 2012 at 5:41 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Was the kingdom to be established at the end of the world, after the judgement of the last day? or was it to be established before the judgment of the last day?

    The coming of the KOG is synonymous with the rapture of the WHOLE Christian church via the resurrection of the dead. Has that happened? Of course not.

  309. on 05 Nov 2012 at 5:44 pmXavier

    Jas

    If the Jews would of repented it could of caused those things to happen then but since they didnt repent these thing didnt come about.

    I don’t think Mat 24.14 happened then and it certainly doesn’t seem to have happened yet since the KOG is yet to come.

  310. on 05 Nov 2012 at 7:23 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    You have totally sidestep the fact that Joshua21:43 CLEARLY state this land was the same God promised to give to the Fathers. Yes Israel received a promise that IF they were obedient they could possess and dwell in the land that God promised UNCONDITIONALLY to GIVE the Fathers.
    So whether or not Israel ever really possessed All the land it cant effect the promise made to Abraham,Isaac, Jacob And Joseph that they would be given All the land to possess and dwell in which unless they were resurrected in Joshua’s time then this promise hasnt been fulfilled. You also ignore that Niniveh was told destruction was imminent but didnt come then the same sign was given by Jesus but he speaks of what happens if they dont repent plus he speaks of what happens if they do. Joel also uses language showing the end was imminent, at hand ,near but was speaking of end days.

    Xavier
    I agree totally about Mat 24.14 but believe this is not accomplished till the end of the 1000 years because I believe that life goes on as normal for the nations during the 1000 years while the kingdom of Israel will become a nation of priest and kings made of the elect that were resurrected . They will preach the gospel to the nations during this time

  311. on 05 Nov 2012 at 11:17 pmXavier

    Jas

    I agree totally about Mat 24.14 but believe this is not accomplished till the end of the 1000 years…

    Why would they preach about a Kingdom that’s already there? Plus, this comes on the heels of a question about Christ’s second coming. Which marks the end of this age and the beginning of the new.

  312. on 06 Nov 2012 at 12:09 amJas

    Xavier
    For the nations they are to be priest and kings to.
    You think they should be like old Israel and be selfish.
    Maybe you dont understand that the gospel was preached by Abraham himself and maybe your equating the gospel that all mankind will be(pre-Lamb) and are now redeemed from the sin of Adam and will receive judgement that eternal live comes from.The Kingdom of New Israel is a reward for those of the covenant which is not eternal life , eternal life is by grace of the Judge of the great white throne cause of the Lamb

  313. on 06 Nov 2012 at 7:51 amXavier

    huh?

    :/

  314. on 06 Nov 2012 at 10:03 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    No, God has not broken His promise to that person, because He did not make the promise just to the person but to the person and their descendants … in this case the promise was – as Josh 21:43 states (!) – fulfilled to the descendants.

    I think there are two basic approaches to interpreting an individual verse of scripture in light of other passages that appear to conflict with it. They are:

    1) The apparent meaning of verse A requires a different understanding of the unanimous apparent meaning of verses B, C, D…Z.

    2) The unanimous apparent meaning of verses B, C, D…Z requires a different understanding of the apparent meaning of verse A.

    This difference in approach is evident in the way a Trinitarian looks at a verse like John 20:28, for example. The Trinitarian will say: “Thomas stated flat-out that Jesus is both his Lord and his God. Therefore you must look at verses B, C, D…Z through this solitary lens!” To which the Unitarian would reply, “Actually, the reverse is true. Verses B, C, D…Z plainly distinguish Jesus from God, so John 20:28 must be viewed through this cumulative lens!”

    It appears to me that you are using approach #1 with Joshua 21:43. You are saying we must not take the cumulative evidence at face value, due to Josh 21:43. I suggest the reverse is true – the cumulative evidence says you must not take Josh 21:43 at face value. Promises were made to both Abraham and Jesus Christ (and all who are in Christ) that have not been fulfilled. There really isn’t a logical way to force the fulfillment of these specific promises into Josh 21:43 since Abraham wasn’t alive then and Christ hadn’t been born yet. Then there are ALL the other verses already cited that unanimously speak of a future land inheritance.

    This tells me that approach #1 will not work with Joshua 21:43. Instead, I think the context of the verse shows a more limited-scope meaning than what you are claiming. Below is Josh 21:43-44 with my comments in brackets:

    “Thus the LORD gave to Israel [the sons of the generation delivered from Egypt] all the land that he [conditionally] swore to give to their fathers [the generation delivered from Egypt ]. And they took possession of it, and they settled there.

    And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers [the generation delivered from Egypt]. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands.” (Jos 21:43-44, cp Deut 11)

    As you know, God made some conditional promises about the land to the generation that was delivered from Egypt. One difference between these promises and the Abrahamic promise is that Israel was promised rest from their enemies on every side if they obeyed God (Deut 11:22-25, et al.). I think Josh 21:43 is better understood as referring back to these particular promises, since God never said anything to the patriarchs in Genesis about giving rest from enemies.

    So Josh 21:43 can confidently say that God fulfilled the land promise without negating a future fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise that will include Abraham and Jesus Christ, exactly as God said it would. This is because Josh 21:43 is talking about the *conditional* land promise made specifically to the fathers delivered from Egypt which was fulfilled in their sons due to their disobedience.

  315. on 06 Nov 2012 at 10:45 amJas

    Hebrews 4

    4:1 Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

    In this verse we find the promise of entering the promised land is still open

    4:2 For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did. But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in with those who heard it in faith.

    In this verse we see the gospel about he promised land was the same then as it was after the resurrection of Jesus

    4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my anger, ‘They will never enter my rest!’” And yet God’s works were accomplished from the foundation of the world. 4:4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 4:5 but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!” 4:6 Therefore it remains for some to enter it, yet those to whom it was previously proclaimed did not enter because of disobedience.

    This shows that this promise is of obedience and only some will enter it.

    4:7 So God again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David after so long a time, as in the words quoted before, “O, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts.” 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day.
    4:9 Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God.

    This verse shows that Israel never entered this rest because He knew they would not be obedient as a nation but set aside a future time for those individuals who were obedient to His commandments.

    4:10 For the one who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works. 4:11 Thus we must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience.

    this verse shows there must be an effort to be obedient to God’s Commandments.
    this is not speaking of the gift of Grace which is given freely to all families of the earth. If Grace requires obedience than it is not given freely so Grace and Rest are 2 different Promises

    4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. 4:13 And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.

    So why the HUH?

  316. on 06 Nov 2012 at 11:44 amXavier

    Jas

    No worries.

  317. on 06 Nov 2012 at 2:28 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah,

    I am surprised to see how you rather easily add “conditionally” to what the verse in Josh 21:43 actually says …. even more so, since in other places you and others here have stated or indicated that the promise to Abraham was “unconditionally” !??!??!

  318. on 06 Nov 2012 at 2:50 pmWolfgang

    @Sarah

    I think there are two basic approaches to interpreting an individual verse of scripture in light of other passages that appear to conflict with it. They are:

    1) The apparent meaning of verse A requires a different understanding of the unanimous apparent meaning of verses B, C, D…Z.

    2) The unanimous apparent meaning of verses B, C, D…Z requires a different understanding of the apparent meaning of verse A.

    I would say that this would be the case as long as the verses are actually speaking about the same matter or subject.

    Yet, not always are verses speaking about the same matter, even though perhaps the same people, same places, etc. are mentioned in different verses.

    For example, just because we read “day of the LORD” does not mean that all verses with that expression are referring to only one matter … there are several days of the LORD mentioned throughout history when God executed His judgment …

    Folks read some OT scriptures about Israel “returning to the land” … and they interpret those as referring to a future return of Israel to the land, when in truth those verses are about something which already happened with their return after the Babylonian captivity …

    As for our matter at hand here … I would say that many of the verses Sean mentioned are not about our matter at hand, the fulfillment of the land promise to Abraham’s descendants as God had sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but are about various other matters involving “the land” …

  319. on 06 Nov 2012 at 5:46 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    What Sarah is saying is she understands the fathers as the ones after the Law was given. If this verse does refer to only them then the promise that was spoken of in 21:43 was conditional which could be possible but I think the promise refered to in 21:43 was to THE FATHERS Abraham,Isaac, Jacob and Joseph with was unconditional to them personally.
    Either way the context of this verse dont support your belief.

  320. on 06 Nov 2012 at 11:30 pmJohn

    The Bible says the Law was given because of transgression. This means people were breaking the Law prior to Sinai that’s why God had to set the standard for godly love and righteousness in stone for all mankind.

    The things contained in the Law are not sinful because God’s says they are sinful, God says they are sinful because they are sinful. Sin kills what God created so He is helping us to idenitfy those things that hurt and cause separation from God and man.

    God said Cain was about to sin when he was contemplating murdering his brother. This was before Sinai.

    The difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is our relation to the Law. Under the old covenant the Law was written in stone. Under the new covenant the Law is written in our hearts. When God writes His Law in out hearts it will be hard not to abey them because they define godly love and righteousness.

  321. on 07 Nov 2012 at 10:40 amJas

    John
    The Law writen by God is perfect and Holy as long as you apply it to the correct promise. It was the means that brought about Grace because without it there would of been no way to define sinless but other than it only pertains to the reward to the people of the promise of entering a future Sabbath rest . This promise was given to Abraham when he promised him that he would possess and dwell in the land shown to him and was passed on to Isaac,Jacob and Joseph verbally as an unconditional promise because the law which came after the promise to Abraham that he would possess and dwelll can not make void the promise, actually none of the promises made to Abraham can be voided by anyone or anything.
    While the land promise was of very importance Abraham looked beyond that to the New Earth and Heaven and the Heavenly city that God builds then brings down to the New heavenly Country.
    While being apart of the Sabbath rest would be a goal I wish I could obtain I wouldnt trade it for the greater promise of Grace that can give me entrance into a heavenly city within a heavenly earth.
    So the Law is Holy as long as you dont misapply it.

  322. on 07 Nov 2012 at 1:15 pmWolfgang

    @Jas

    ever considered that the heavenly city (Jerusalem above) has already come down to earth ? Cp. Gal 4 section contrasting the two Jerusalems mentioned there … and note carefully the time at which it was written and how the Jerusalem which is above is identified as being the church of the body of Christ. Also note Eph which clearly states that the church is the temple of God.. God’s habitation … and cp. what Rev mentions about the nature of the true temple and God inhabiting it ..

  323. on 07 Nov 2012 at 2:01 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Do you understand that there is literal,figurative and spiritual senses in the bible and a lot of likening.
    why should I redefine a very clear literal meaning because someone uses a figurative or spiritual sense about it.
    yes i consider all options but not ones that are just spiritualizing to make a point, just as the ones that are figurative even though that can desribe a literal sense of a future time the best the writer can understand it.

  324. on 07 Nov 2012 at 3:06 pmWolfgang

    @Jas

    I certainly understand that there is literal and figurative use of language in the Bible, and I am quite familiar with such uses of language, being bi-lingual and having worked as a translator over the years …
    I do not understand what you mean with “spiritual sense” — how would you define “spiritual sense” (in contrast to (a) literal, and (b) figurative senses)?

    One should not redefine any meaning just because someone else understands a passage either figuratively or literally … one should determine the proper meaning – whether literal or figurative – because of what the texts says and what the context and scope of the Bible mandate!

    It seems to me from what you have written above, that you perhaps are not too familiar with the use of figures of speech in the Bible. I also am wondering how you interpret “spiritual sense” …

  325. on 07 Nov 2012 at 3:30 pmJas

    “I certainly understand that there is literal and figurative use of language in the Bible, and I am quite familiar with such uses of language, being bi-lingual and having worked as a translator over the years …”

    Wolfgang
    I guess that would make some several hundred million people authorities . Do you look upon those that speak 3 or more languages as gods

    “It seems to me from what you have written above, that you perhaps are not too familiar with the use of figures of speech in the Bible. I also am wondering how you interpret “spiritual sense” …”

    Wolfgang
    I was thinking the same about you from all you post.

  326. on 07 Nov 2012 at 3:48 pmWolfgang

    @Jas,

    so then what is the meaning of “spiritual sense” in your earlier post? I’m still waiting for an answer …

    what was your latest reply to accomplish?

  327. on 07 Nov 2012 at 4:07 pmJas

    The purpose was to show you your boasting and attack was not effective.
    Spiritual sense it figurative sense using something that cant be seen

  328. on 07 Nov 2012 at 4:17 pmWolfgang

    @Jas,

    no boasting needed … actually, your reply showed exactly the opposite of what you intended.

    Now then, you wrote “spiritual sense is figurative sense using something that can’t be seen” … and what does that mean? “spiritual sense is figurative sense” ? “using something that can’t be seen” ?
    Please explain … or perhaps provide an example …

  329. on 07 Nov 2012 at 4:29 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I meant my reply in the literal sense which would make it effective but maybe you didnt understand that just because you are bi-lingual and work as a translator that doesnt automatically make you understand context of anything.

    Examples
    temple being within us, when all that means we allow the presence of God to be apart of us.
    Kingdom of God within us which means we show the signs of people living in that future kingdom

  330. on 15 Sep 2014 at 11:24 pmAnonymous

    The verse “you are not under law but under grace” is not really contradictory to law keeping but is simply a highly qualified, highly condensed verse referring to 4 areas of law that have been specifically discussed in the New Testament as abolished: 1) sacrifices, 2) circumcision, 3) the Levitical priesthood, and 4) the law of sin and death, a major law (Romans 8:2). To initially come under grace and then to remain under grace you actually need to obey the law, which would include the dietary, festival, tithing, and Saturday Sabbath rest laws, etc. since those laws never were singled out as abolished. Acts 5:32 and Acts 2:38 demand that you obey the law to acquire the Holy Spirit, which is needed for salvation. I highly recommend that you visit http://TithingHelps.Us to better understand why most Christians really do need to obey more Old Testament laws to avoid being condemned to the “lake of fire” for ANOMIA, defined as an abandonment of Mosaic law keeping in Matthew 7:23, 13:41,42. Part of the deadly sin of ANOMIA includes the way most mainstream Christians think of the Mosaic laws, which is with contempt.

  331. on 16 Sep 2014 at 5:15 amTimoteo

    Dear Mr Anonymous,

    For your information, we are on a “first name bases” here on this Kingdom Ready blog. Sarah, Wolfgang, Xavier, Jas, Jaco and Ray are all known to me, Timoteo(aka Timothy).

    Your name seems to reflect a “hidden agenda” which is transparent to the majority of writers here, I am sure.

    “Anonymous” has become a buzz word in our urban dictionary.

    Few seem to know the *NOAHIDE LAW*, which predates the Moses Law.

    And the first commandment given to mankind:

    Genesis 1: (kjv)
    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, ……..

    And the first command given to Noah when he stepped back on dry-land after the flood.

    Genesis 9: (kjv)
    1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

    IMHO, you, Mr Anonymous should use at least your first name or your nick name.

  332. on 17 Sep 2014 at 9:40 pmJas

    Anonymous
    I see you have included a website but no name. It seems you believe the mosaic law is a means of Grace. Grace is a gift not something you can obtain because it came to you at first breath or conception. The Mosaic Law only applies to those who choose to enter a covenant relationship with God. the reward for maintaining the relationship will be a prolonged life in the land promised to Abraham. this will be achieved by the first resurrection. All those who do not enter this relationship will be raised in second resurrection(Grace) and then Judged worthy or not worthy of receiving eternal life. There will be a multitude in this group who will receive eternal life. this will probably be the group I belong to even though I love God’s Laws and try to obey them but for lack of enough truth have not been able to enter a Covenant Relationship with God .

  333. on 18 Sep 2014 at 7:11 amTimoteo

    Yes Jas…..

    The words of GOD speak to anonymous minds too.

    Jeremiah 2: (kjv)
    13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

    Hosea 4: (kjv)
    6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,……..

    Ecclesiastes 2: (kjv)
    26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

    Luke 1: (kjv)
    77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,……..

    Romans 3: (kjv)
    20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    1 Corinthians 15: (kjv)
    34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

    Colossians 1: (kjv)
    9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;……..

    Hebrews 10: (kjv)
    26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,……..

    being anonymous does not always bring amenity

    Galatians 2: (kjv)
    4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:……..

    Galatians 5: (kjv)
    1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    nineteen hundred forty and seven at seventy eight rounds per minute
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wSgMnwGO-A

  334. on 19 Sep 2014 at 12:51 pmWilliam A. Kysela

    Without a doubt, the Mosaic Laws,etc. are all in the past! Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of all the Law and the Prophets according to His own words. This includes even the Ten Commandments! Following the teachings of Jesus Christ relieves one from all the Laws since by following HIS teachings you will not violate those older laws and covenants. Our salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone.

  335. on 19 Sep 2014 at 7:39 pmJas

    William
    Unfortunately the Bible never states that. Jesus fulfilled the prophesy and also the means of atonement for Israel past,then, and future. The rest of the Law will not change until the current heaven and earth remain.This is only important to those who chose to live a set apart life from the world by entering a covenant relationship with God by accepting His Ways setup up in the Mosaic Law for Israel. All those who do not want to or have not figured out will receive Grace by being raised from the Grave so they can be judged worthy or unworthy of eternal life in the new heaven and earth which comes 1000 years +a season after the reward of those who maintained a covenant relationship by following the Law and using the atonement when they unwilling sinned.
    I myself have not been able to enter that relationship because the last 2000 years has hidden the way. You ,me and Imho everyone today will only receive Grace but who knows what truths may be discovered allowing a revival of the true set apart(CHURCH)

  336. on 20 Sep 2014 at 5:24 amTimoteo

    JAS,

    I am enjoying this revival conversation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMcA9ALFWD8

    and wish that you would answer this question in detail:

    In the above, # 335, you state:

    ” Unfortunately the Bible never states that. ”

    My question, giving respect to William A Kyselas probably wanting to ask you the same question; my question is:
    *what does the Bible never state*? Actually, you are being disrespectful
    using the word *state* in reference to GODs words by:

    2 Peter 1: (kjv)
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Mr Anonymous,

    I respect the time and effort you and yours have exhausted with you website linked.

    The italicized words in JKV and NASB are more revieling to errors with two favorites of mine.

    Genisis 1: (kjv)
    2 And the earth [was] *italicized* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    why? Well, there is no word *to be* in Hebrew.

    and again:

    Genesis 4: (kjv)
    9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] *italicized* I my brother’s keeper?

    Read Kingdom Ready:

    “God’s Not-So-Secret Agents” by Guest Author Bethany Reise

    http://lhim.org/blog/2012/12/17/gods-not-so-secret-agents/

  337. on 20 Sep 2014 at 8:00 amJas

    Timothy
    Its more a hope than a fact because God can populate the future Kingdom of Israel of God with the resurrected not have a single person from this current days.
    The Bible never states the Mosaic Law ended, only certain aspects of it were fulfilled by Jesus filling that spot like the sacrifice and priesthood .
    As for Judicial judgement like death sentence for not following the Law can only be carried out by someone who is without any sin accounted to them but the bible states those who have the Holy Spirit do not sin willfully.As for being disrespectful you are entitled to your opinion.

  338. on 20 Sep 2014 at 6:11 pmTimoteo

    JAS,

    Do you reject these verses as well? :

    Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

    Then, if not, why not take the following action in your heart:

    Romans 10: (kjv)
    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

  339. on 20 Sep 2014 at 8:44 pmJas

    Timothy
    Why should I reject, these are Torah observant Jews, all they needed was to accept Jesus and be water baptized under his authority .
    As Brian has wrote about, salvation has at least 3 meanings in the bible.
    Israel needed salvation to participate in the promise to Abraham and ALL others needed salvation from remaining in the Grave (death reigning).
    Everyone receives at least one type of salvation. Paul preached Grace to All first then Paul also preached entering a covenant relationship with God by accepting the Word of God(Torah) as their ways and being water baptized under the authority of High Priest so they could receive the promised comforter in their flesh.2 Peter 1 shows the HS can come upon anyone God chooses for his purpose but being indwelt bodily is the promise of the New Priesthood Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah and quoted by Paul.
    It is past time for you to understand the cultural context of these and many other verses.

  340. on 19 May 2015 at 8:41 pmsteve

    Ge 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” (KJV..all verses)
    God rested in ‘the beginning’. This is for All people. The Holy Bible never states that the day was ever changed to Sunday,(non Biblical) The Apostles followed the Sabbath until they were matyred. Jesus had risen up to decades prior.
    Ac 13:42 “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.”
    43 “Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.”
    44 “And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”
    45 “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.”—The Jews hated Jesus and what he preached.

    Mosiac law started with Moses, and was a schoolmaster to lead to Christ—Ga 3:24 “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”—no one ‘in Christ’ is under the law. Jews who reject Christ then and now have no righteousness thru Christ.
    Joh 1:11 “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Their fate is the wrath of God.

    Christ returns at the 2nd advent and never touches the earth. —1Th 4:16″ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:”
    1Th 4:17 “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”—some call this the rapture(non Biblical)

    Jesus went to prepare a place for us—Joh 14:2 “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”
    Heb 12:22 ” But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,”
    Re 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”—we are Christs bride and the church is the temple …1Co 3:16 ¶ “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

    If you will not live for Christ today, why would you want to live for Christ in eternity?
    You have a choice….repent of your sins and be baptized.
    Ro 6:3 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
    4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
    6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
    7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

    You cannot show me any that are freed ‘from sin and Gods wrath’ that are Not with Christ.
    Are you Kingdom Ready? or do you like torment—
    Re 14:11 “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

    The Bible has a beginning and an end.

  

Leave a Reply