PDA

View Full Version : David Friedman's "They Loved the Torah"



Richard Amiel McGough
10-16-2007, 10:11 PM
I just read most of David Friedman's "They Loved the Torah (http://www.amazon.com/They-Loved-Torah-Yeshuas-Followers/dp/1880226944/ref=sr_1_1/103-0757130-7718202?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192552241&sr=8-1)" but unfortunately he didn't address any of the really important questions. It was a small book, and easy to read. He successfully showed that Jesus was Torah observant, but everybody already knew that because He was "born under the Law to redeem them that are under the law" (Galatians 4.4-5). So the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Torah is not news to anyone and it does not impact the question of "Torah observance" in the life of a Christian at all.

Friedman then tried to show that all the disciples - most importantly Paul - also were completely "Torah observant" but I think he failed in that respect because he didn't deal with any of the really important texts. I mean, he didn't even mention Galatians anywhere in his book!

His conclusion is very revealing. Here's a snippet:


From David Friedman's Conclusion ---
The evidence clearly confirms that the individuals studied in this book, including Yeshua himself, lived a Torah-observant lifestyle. Though the exact methods of Torah observance may have differed between people - the Torah was not discarded as an invalid document. Their continued observance of the Torah implies its ongoing significance in their lives and their acceptance of this theological fact.

This is an example of the fundamental problem with the whole discussion about "Torah-observance." I do not know of a single Christian theologian worth his salt who would ever suggest we should "discard" the Torah as an "invalid document." And it is my opinion that anyone who would compose such a sentence is not familiar with the profound theological issues involved with question of "Torah observance" for a follower of Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to be judgmental. I'm just stating the facts as I see them. For example, when trying to show that Peter (whom he called Shim'on) was "Torah observant" Friedman wrote: "If Shim'on had a problem with the validity of the Torah after becoming a Messianic Jew, he certainly would not have quoted from it to prove his points." That assertion is, of course, absurd, because Paul himself quoted the Torah to prove that because of sin, the Torah contained a curse that could be alleviated only through faith in Christ. And in the same epistle, Paul explicitly contradicted the Torah's circumcision commandment, saying "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." (Galatians 5.2). And besides that, the removal of the "yoke" of the Torah through its fulfillment in Christ does not contradict its continued existence as the sacred Word of God which is "holy, and just, and good." (Rom 7:12).

So the bottom line is this - Friedman's book contained no theology at all, and so offers no help in resolving the the theological question concerning "Torah observance" and the Christian.

As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul" in his Epistles, a name confirmed by Peter in his second epistle and by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself when He called him "Paul" in Acts 23:11:


Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Some Messianics argue that Paul had two names, which is a possibility, but not certain. If he really did have two names, then we would expect his Hebrew brother Simon Peter to call him by his Hebrew name when he wrote to the Hebrew tribes "dispersed abroad." But Peter called him "Paul" even when speaking to fellow Hebrews:


2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

This is confirmed by the fact that Paul called Peter by his Aramaic name Kepha but Peter never called Paul "Sha'ul." And finally, I do not know of any early church documents that called him Sha'ul. So if we started calling him "Shaul" now in the 21st century, it would seem like we were turning away from our "Hebrew roots" rather than towards them, since the original Hebrews who knew him - including Jesus, Peter, all the early Church fathers, and most notably Paul himself - called him "Paul."

Richard

dr_sabra
07-12-2011, 07:17 AM
You obviously do not understand what Dr. Friedman's purpose was. This was a brilliant book, and his sole purpose was clearly to prove the Torah observance of Jesus, which he did. Why would or should you expect him to have done anything else???? And you stated: " he didn't address any of the really important questions." I have to scratch my head and wonder what in the world you are thinking? Of course he addressed the really important issues TO the subject matter he was dealing with! It seems to me like you just felt like attacking the typical Messianic Jewish position on a number of matters that indeed he didn't deal with, and so you very unjustly lash out at this author with your own personal theological frustrations. And may I add that I happen to disagree with most of your stated positions.

Larry "Sabra" Holtzmann

Richard Amiel McGough
07-12-2011, 07:41 AM
You obviously do not understand what Dr. Friedman's purpose was. This was a brilliant book, and his sole purpose was clearly to prove the Torah observance of Jesus, which he did. Why would or should you expect him to have done anything else???? And you stated: " he didn't address any of the really important questions." I have to scratch my head and wonder what in the world you are thinking? Of course he addressed the really important issues TO the subject matter he was dealing with! It seems to me like you just felt like attacking the typical Messianic Jewish position on a number of matters that indeed he didn't deal with, and so you very unjustly lash out at this author with your own personal theological frustrations. And may I add that I happen to disagree with most of your stated positions.

Larry "Sabra" Holtzmann
Hi Larry,

First, let me say "Welcome to our forum!"

:welcome:

Now as for your comments. You wrote "his sole purpose was clearly to prove the Torah observance of Jesus." That is not correct. It was not his "sole purpose." On the contrary, his ultimate purpose was obviously to promote "Torah observance" amongst modern Christians. This is a fundamental error that Paul addressed in Galatians:
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This is why I said he did not deal with any of the really "important" issues. He used the fact that the first century Jewish believers were Torah observant to support his false conclusion that Christians should be Torah observant. But this directly contradicts the teachings of the NT on many points. For example, the Torah teaches that male children must be circumcised whereas Paul explicitly stated that was not necessary to fulfill the commands of the Lord:
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
No teacher promoting observance of Torah could write those words. Friedman did not address any of these important issues. That's why I said he did not address any of the really important issues.

Your perception that I "just felt like attacking the typical Messianic Jewish position" because of some "personal theological frustrations" has no foundation in fact. I quoted the actual words written by Friedman, and supported my argument with logic and facts. It would be good if you did the same if you want to criticize my writings. As it stands, you have not shown any error in anything I have written. I would be delighted to pursue this topic if you are so inclined.

All the best,

Richard

dr_sabra
07-14-2011, 10:56 AM
Well, Richard, unless you are Dr. Friedman, how do you know what his purpose was? You clearly are projecting your own feelings on this matter. Why don't you write Dr. Friedman and ask him what his purpose was? No, you'd rather take a wild guess, and a wild guess (and a wrong one, may I add) is what you did.

Dr. Friedman is known in the Messianic Jewish world for NOT believing that Christians should keep the mitzvot of the Torah like a Jewish person would. But you wouldn't know that, would you? If you'd like, I'm happy to give you Dr. Friedman's e-mail. I know him. Want to take me up on this?

Larry

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2011, 10:35 PM
Well, Richard, unless you are Dr. Friedman, how do you know what his purpose was? You clearly are projecting your own feelings on this matter. Why don't you write Dr. Friedman and ask him what his purpose was? No, you'd rather take a wild guess, and a wild guess (and a wrong one, may I add) is what you did.

Dr. Friedman is known in the Messianic Jewish world for NOT believing that Christians should keep the mitzvot of the Torah like a Jewish person would. But you wouldn't know that, would you? If you'd like, I'm happy to give you Dr. Friedman's e-mail. I know him. Want to take me up on this?

Larry
Hey there Larry,

I do not need to "be" Dr. Friedman to read and understand his words. I know his purpose because he explained it in his book. Specifically, here is what he wrote in the conclusion of his book concerning his purpose:



It behooves followers of Messiah to develop a theology that is true to the pattern of observance found in the Scriptures. While doing so, care must be taken to fulfill the mitzvot in a merciful manner, without placing pressure on others to do as we do. Therefore, speaking as one who believes in a merciful, grace-filled, and Torah-observant Messianic Judaism, I urge a closer study of Yeshua's practice of Torah observance. He is the perfect role model.

I wrote that "his ultimate purpose was obviously to promote 'Torah observance' amongst modern Christians." My statement is true. It is fully supported by Dr. Friedman's own words. He said it himself. He said Jesus was Torah observant and Jesus is the perfect role model. It appears you did not even read his book. You have falsely accused me of "projecting [my] own feelings on this matter." Will you now admit the truth?

All the best,

Richard

dr_sabra
07-15-2011, 06:27 AM
Dr. Friedman directs his words, AND his book AND his message TO OTHER MESSIANIC JEWS! Again, I know him, and that is the audience intended for his book. He writes: "WHATEVER WE DECIDE OUR CALLING AND PURPOSES ARE AS MESSIANIC JEWS..." (his conclusion and his audience!). And again: "...those of us IN THE MESSIANIC JEWISH COMMUNITY need to exhibit..." (again from his conclusion, showing his audience and his own self-identification); and finally he specifically states: "...WITHOUT PUTTING PRESSURE ON OTHERS TO DO AS WE (Messianic Jews) DO..." (p.121). He can't get much clearer than that. But if you persist in your stubborn and wrong conclusion, I am happy, again, to have Dr. Friedman write to you. It would only take a phone call from me, his former student. Lenny

dr_sabra
07-15-2011, 07:05 AM
Dr. Friedman, in 2005-7, taught: 'First Century Jewish history', 'Medieval Jewish literature', 'Introduction to Talmud', 'The book of Isaiah', 'The book of Jeremiah', 'The book of Hebrews', 'History of the Holocaust' and 'Modern Israeli History'. I took them all. By then he had written two more works, 'Sudden Terror' and 'Who Knows Abba Arika'. He now has written more ('Bereshit' and 'In my Home'). He is a scholar of Hebrew, Jewish thought, Jewish history, Holocaust studies, and a real gentleman. In addition, he is a sought after public speaker in many different venues (he wrote me that he just got back from Poland, after leading a joint Jewish-Arab prayer tour there). The man is a 'mentsch' (go learn some Yiddish).

I was in all of those classes. He dialogued a lot with us about his beliefs on Torah observance. We asked him many questions about it. THAT is why I am writing you like I am, half in fits about your judgments and your wrong beliefs about this wonderful person whose writing you pretend to understand, but clearly do not. You remind me of the Woody Allen film, where he stands in line next to a supposed Marshall McLuhan expert, who ran off at the mouth about McLuhan, but was rebuffed by someone else in line who told him that he understood nothing about McLuhan. Then that person went and fetched McLuhan, who said, 'Yes, you totally misunderstand what I mean...' If Dr. Friedman were standing here today, he'd read your words and chuckle, because of your misunderstanding and wrong projections of what he CLEARLY wrote!

May I suggest another thing, personally for you, from me...you should read "The Irony of Galatians" by Jewish scholar Mark Nanos (from Kansas City). He will challenge your reading of the book of Galatians. Just try it. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-15-2011, 10:56 AM
Dr. Friedman directs his words, AND his book AND his message TO OTHER MESSIANIC JEWS! Again, I know him, and that is the audience intended for his book. He writes: "WHATEVER WE DECIDE OUR CALLING AND PURPOSES ARE AS MESSIANIC JEWS..." (his conclusion and his audience!). And again: "...those of us IN THE MESSIANIC JEWISH COMMUNITY need to exhibit..." (again from his conclusion, showing his audience and his own self-identification); and finally he specifically states: "...WITHOUT PUTTING PRESSURE ON OTHERS TO DO AS WE (Messianic Jews) DO..." (p.121). He can't get much clearer than that. But if you persist in your stubborn and wrong conclusion, I am happy, again, to have Dr. Friedman write to you. It would only take a phone call from me, his former student. Lenny
He began the quote with the words "It behooves followers of Messiah to develop a theology that is true to the pattern of observance found in the Scriptures." Are there any Christians who are not "followers of Messiah?" Your argument fails.

And besides that, it doesn't matter if he is addressing only those who think of themselves as "Messianic Jews" because there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Therefore, he is schismatic, as is typical of the "Hebrew roots" movement.

As I said, he did not deal with any of the real issues of "Torah observance" in his book, and that was my primary criticism. You have not disputed anything I have written on that point, so my argument stands.

I would be delighted to discuss this with him on this forum if he is so inclined. You could email him and invite him to register. It's free, and I am very fair. He will be able to express his opinions with no censorship of any kind.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-15-2011, 11:07 AM
Dr. Friedman, in 2005-7, taught: 'First Century Jewish history', 'Medieval Jewish literature', 'Introduction to Talmud', 'The book of Isaiah', 'The book of Jeremiah', 'The book of Hebrews', 'History of the Holocaust' and 'Modern Israeli History'. I took them all. By then he had written two more works, 'Sudden Terror' and 'Who Knows Abba Arika'. He now has written more ('Bereshit' and 'In my Home'). He is a scholar of Hebrew, Jewish thought, Jewish history, Holocaust studies, and a real gentleman. In addition, he is a sought after public speaker in many different venues (he wrote me that he just got back from Poland, after leading a joint Jewish-Arab prayer tour there). The man is a 'mentsch' (go learn some Yiddish).

That word is "mensch" not "mentsch." Maybe you should go learn some Yiddish, and while you are at it, maybe you could learn some manners too.



I was in all of those classes. He dialogued a lot with us about his beliefs on Torah observance. We asked him many questions about it. THAT is why I am writing you like I am, half in fits about your judgments and your wrong beliefs about this wonderful person whose writing you pretend to understand, but clearly do not. You remind me of the Woody Allen film, where he stands in line next to a supposed Marshall McLuhan expert, who ran off at the mouth about McLuhan, but was rebuffed by someone else in line who told him that he understood nothing about McLuhan. Then that person went and fetched McLuhan, who said, 'Yes, you totally misunderstand what I mean...' If Dr. Friedman were standing here today, he'd read your words and chuckle, because of your misunderstanding and wrong projections of what he CLEARLY wrote!

Empty words. I presented direct quotes from Friedman's book and you did not respond. I presented relevant quotations from the Bible that he failed to address in his book and you did not respond. Obviously, you are more like that character in the Woody Allen film than I.



May I suggest another thing, personally for you, from me...you should read "The Irony of Galatians" by Jewish scholar Mark Nanos (from Kansas City). He will challenge your reading of the book of Galatians. Just try it. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something.
Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look at it and get back to you. In the meantime, maybe you should read Romans 2:1 - though somehow I doubt you will learn anything from it.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-15-2011, 11:31 AM
As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul" in his Epistles, a name confirmed by Peter in his second epistle and by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself when He called him "Paul" in Acts 23:11:


Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Some Messianics argue that Paul had two names, which is a possibility, but not certain. If he really did have two names, then we would expect his Hebrew brother Simon Peter to call him by his Hebrew name when he wrote to the Hebrew tribes "dispersed abroad." But Peter called him "Paul" even when speaking to fellow Hebrews:


2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
This is confirmed by the fact that Paul called Peter by his Aramaic name Kepha but Peter never called Paul "Sha'ul." And finally, I do not know of any early church documents that called him Sha'ul. So if we started calling him "Shaul" now in the 21st century, it would seem like we were turning away from our "Hebrew roots" rather than towards them, since the original Hebrews who knew him - including Jesus, Peter, all the early Church fathers, and most notably Paul himself - called him "Paul."

Larry,

Do you have an answer for this criticism?

Richard

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:17 AM
Now you're just being stubborn and showing, well, I hate to knock you, but your ignorance of both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom. You wrote: "As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul"

Richard, my friend, 'paul' is a Greek name. It is a nickname (Ι started to type in Greek but this site doesn't support Greek text)! Did you change your name when you became a believer? No. Neither did he. He wrote people under his nickname, 'servant' (paulos). Friedman can call Shaul whatever he wants to...Shaul was his given name, and it IS respectful. Many Jews today are called by that same 1st name. Is it disrespectful to name someone Shaul (or Saul in English)? You'd have to argue such in order for your comment to be valid! Shaul is RESPECTFULLY called a rabbi by Dr. Friedman, and every other Messianic Jew who calls him such (and the great majority do so). 'Rabbi' is a title of respect in the modern Jewish world. All it means is 'an ordained teacher' and a scholarly community leader. That's all, but if you've never studied Hebrew, you wouldn't know that, right? And if you make a stink about 'Rabbi' Shaul, why don't you make a stink about Christians calling themselves 'Reverend' or 'Elder' or 'teacher'? Or how about St. James (a totally culturally Christianized name that has nothing to do with his real historical name (which was Yakov ben Yosef). St. James? He wouldn't know who you're talking about. Do you call Abraham ever by his name Abram? If you do, you sin. You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment. Why? Specifically we are told in the scriptures that God changed Abram's name to Abraham, and from then on, Abraham was to be his name. Why don't you make a stink about Christian authors who refer to Abraham by his name Abram? I've read enough authors who do this indiscriminately. But no big deal, right, unless it's a Messianic Jew calling Paul by his real name. Now, to me, this sounds a little like a bit of anti-Jewish slant...no, that couldn't be.
So go ahead and strongly reject what you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:31 AM
'Shaul' means 'someone who has been asked for [their conception or birth] by God', which is a beautiful meaning. All Hebrew names in the scriptures carry a meaning, many expressive of wonderful meanings. 'Paulos'--either a 'little person' or a 'servant'. Such a name in the ancient world, both Greek and Jewish, was common for Jews, especially Diaspora Jews. Look at Shmuel Safrai and Menachem Stern's 'The Jewish People in the First Century', an encyclopedic work by two Israeli scholars, and you will learn there (among many many other places where you obviously have never looked) to learn about how names were used in the 1st century. And then you'd know that Greek names were given to Jewish families in the Diaspora, but did NOT cancel out their Hebrew names, also given at birth. One used the name that fit the country where one lived. Just like in the USA, or France, or Canada or Britain...a Jewish person is most often given 2 names: a Hebrew one (Shaul, e.g.) and a foreign one (Paulos, e.g.). They NEVER canceled each other. Shaul used his name Shaul while in Israel, like everyone else did. And when writing his letters to GREEK SPEAKING peoples where he spoke to them in Greek (as in Corinth, where he was for a year and a half), guess what? He used his Greek name. There was no canceling out one for the other! That was not the culture, not in Israel and not in Greece, nor the practice. And if you want to reject that, then you are putting your heavyweight scholarly experience up against Stern, Safrai (two Hebrew University scholars, PhDs and department heads for many years), against Dr. Lawrence Schiffman (go look up his bio), Dr. Eldon Clem (world class Aramaic scholar, Hebrew Union College), Drs. David Bivin, Robert Lindsey, Joseph Frankovic and Randall Buth (all 4 are Christian scholars) and lastly, Dr. Lenny Holtzman (that's me, PhD in Jewish studies and Messianic Jew).
That kind of makes you need to argue v. proven history with some facts, and not your fiats. Until then, we'll remain calling Paul by Rabbi Shaul, and we still love Yeshua our Messiah and God with all of our hearts, minds and lives. Unless you, of course, decide otherwise.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:45 AM
" My 'You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment", should read "grossly disrespectful" '

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:48 AM
Remember why we discuss and debate! All we have to lose are the errors we hold, and then we gain the truth! There is nothing but shame to be gained by willfully holding to false opinions!
-----------------------------------------------Well, Richard, those are your own words. Maybe YOU should follow them, too.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:59 AM
Here are some things for you to read. But I'll use your own words again (talk about not being nice?)--'I doubt you'll learn anything from it'. Boy I hate writing those words. They're too mean. Too bad, because I think you can learn, if you want to...just look at your own quote at the bottom of your blog pages.

Richard, you try to dialogue with Messianic Jews without really listening to us. That's sad. Secondly, I don't find you 'fair', as you state that you are (that's usually a statement that someone else should make about you). And, finally, you truly do need to listen to the very words of Dr. Friedman. Instead, you project into them, and you DON'T take verbatim what he wrote, which I quoted to you: his intended audience are Messianic Jews, and he addresses them, CLEARLY by the quotes I gave. I stand by EVERYTHING that I wrote about him and his book--he is writing to his 'own kind'. He has a right to do so, and he has been a huge blessing to all of us who have learned from him for many years. In addition, would you complain if a Native American believing author wrote to other Native American believers about issues pertinent to them? Of course you wouldn't. Would you complain if an African American did the same? No. But a Jew? Richard, that looks bad, buddy. Convince me otherwise.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 01:03 AM
Lastly for today...when someone complains about my use of Yiddish, they usually are admitting that they are losing a debate. To paraphrase an American patriot (with lots of love and a little literary room): 'Complaining about the grammar or spelling of your nemesis is the last refuge of a debate loser.' Of course, if you think you know Yiddish better than I do, well, we could write each other in Yiddish. I could do it. Just let me know. It'd be fun. I have to admit that my Hebrew is much much better, though. My Arabic isn't bad, either. And my Polish is understandable. But that's a harder language to read.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 01:24 AM
There a few writers in Yiddish who actually do write 'mensch' as 'mentsch', as their particular Yiddish dialect pronounces a hard 't' between the 'n' and 's'. For example, look here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256382/jewish/On-Being-a-Mentch.htm

I trust you'd admit that Rabbi Henson is not ignorant of Yiddish usage.

So, I am saying that you are right in your official spelling (which is admitting more than you have been willing to admit about anything, including your clearly wrong assertions about Dr. Friedman's target audience and his God-given right to address them as he wishes). Lenny

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 10:28 AM
Now you're just being stubborn and showing, well, I hate to knock you, but your ignorance of both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom. You wrote: "As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul"

Oh yes, I can how much you "hate" to knock me! If you hated it any more, you'd probably want to marry it! :hysterical:

You are so typical of a small-mind cultist. You set yourself up as judge and rudely say "go learn some Yiddish" and when I respond in kind, you blow a gasket! Ha! You folks are so predictable.

So now you throw out more false and unsupported insults by calling me ignorant of "both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom." Hummm ... "both" Hebrew (1), Greek (2), and Jewish Second Temple custom (3)? I guess I'm "ignorant" of the meaning of "both" too! You're a hoot dude! :lmbo:

Oh, and by the way, I've read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew.



Richard, my friend, 'paul' is a Greek name. It is a nickname (Ι started to type in Greek but this site doesn't support Greek text)! Did you change your name when you became a believer? No. Neither did he. He wrote people under his nickname, 'servant' (paulos). Friedman can call Shaul whatever he wants to...Shaul was his given name, and it IS respectful. Many Jews today are called by that same 1st name. Is it disrespectful to name someone Shaul (or Saul in English)? You'd have to argue such in order for your comment to be valid! Shaul is RESPECTFULLY called a rabbi by Dr. Friedman, and every other Messianic Jew who calls him such (and the great majority do so). 'Rabbi' is a title of respect in the modern Jewish world. All it means is 'an ordained teacher' and a scholarly community leader. That's all, but if you've never studied Hebrew, you wouldn't know that, right? And if you make a stink about 'Rabbi' Shaul, why don't you make a stink about Christians calling themselves 'Reverend' or 'Elder' or 'teacher'? Or how about St. James (a totally culturally Christianized name that has nothing to do with his real historical name (which was Yakov ben Yosef). St. James? He wouldn't know who you're talking about. Do you call Abraham ever by his name Abram? If you do, you sin. You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment. Why? Specifically we are told in the scriptures that God changed Abram's name to Abraham, and from then on, Abraham was to be his name. Why don't you make a stink about Christian authors who refer to Abraham by his name Abram? I've read enough authors who do this indiscriminately. But no big deal, right, unless it's a Messianic Jew calling Paul by his real name. Now, to me, this sounds a little like a bit of anti-Jewish slant...no, that couldn't be.
So go ahead and strongly reject what you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
Your answer fails on so many points, it's best to number them:

1) You missed the point of my argument and failed to address the facts that I presented. You wasted a lot of words defending the use of "Rabbi" when I didn't say a single word about that term in and of itself. I have no problem with teachers being called Rabbi because Jesus was called Rabbi and Rabboni. My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul."

2) You asserted that "Paul" is a nickname. The Bible does not state that and you do not know that. You made it up to support your schismatic cult. The risen Lord Jesus Christ called him "Paul" and Paul always in every case referred to himself by that name. Indeed, he even wrote his so-called "nickname" in his own hand in 2 Thess 3:17 "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."

3) You ask if believers change names when they get saved, and answered in the negative. This is ignorant of both the Biblical and traditional Jewish and Christian practices. Christ himself promises to give "new names" to believers (Rev 3:12). There is a strong Biblical precedent for the changing of names after encounters with God: Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, Shaul/Paul, and the latter change was ratified by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Acts 23:11) and Peter (2 Pet 3:15) and throughout Luke's account in Acts. You and Friedman and all "Messianic Jews" spit on the actual written text of the Bible when you change the "Paul" of inspired Greek text to "Shaul." Friedman did this when he "quoted" Acts 28:17 on page 49 of his book. He deliberately and willfully denied the Bible as the Word of God when he changed the name "Paul" to "Shaul."

3) You assert that Shaul is his "real" name, but there is no more reason to believe that than to believe that Abram is Abraham's "real" name. Yes, it was his given name, but that name was changed and he was never called Abram after the change and you assert that it would be a "sin" to call him "Abram" after that. The same goes for Paul. In other cases two names may be used, as with Jacob/Israel but there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Paul continued being known as "Shaul" after his name change. You argument falls.

4) You assert that I've "never studied Hebrew" - that is a blatant and ignorant falsehood. I have read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew. Your statements are not merely false, they are ignorant, rude, and absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself.

5) As for the name "James" - I agree that is a lousy way to "translate" Yacov, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand because it is not an attempt to falsify the Bible as when using "Shaul" when the BIBLE uses "Paul."

6) You imply that I have an "anti-Jewish slant" because I oppose attempts to pervert the actual words written in the Bible by a Judaizing schismatic cult? Oh my ... you better call the Anti-Defamation League! I'm sure they'd be delighted to help! :rofl:

7) Finally, none of your arguments touched any of the facts I presented. You comments are filled with fallacious ad hominem and errors in facts.

Thanks for putting all those fish in a barrel. They were fun to shoot.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 10:46 AM
'Shaul' means 'someone who has been asked for [their conception or birth] by God', which is a beautiful meaning. All Hebrew names in the scriptures carry a meaning, many expressive of wonderful meanings. 'Paulos'--either a 'little person' or a 'servant'. Such a name in the ancient world, both Greek and Jewish, was common for Jews, especially Diaspora Jews. Look at Shmuel Safrai and Menachem Stern's 'The Jewish People in the First Century', an encyclopedic work by two Israeli scholars, and you will learn there (among many many other places where you obviously have never looked) to learn about how names were used in the 1st century. And then you'd know that Greek names were given to Jewish families in the Diaspora, but did NOT cancel out their Hebrew names, also given at birth. One used the name that fit the country where one lived. Just like in the USA, or France, or Canada or Britain...a Jewish person is most often given 2 names: a Hebrew one (Shaul, e.g.) and a foreign one (Paulos, e.g.). They NEVER canceled each other. Shaul used his name Shaul while in Israel, like everyone else did. And when writing his letters to GREEK SPEAKING peoples where he spoke to them in Greek (as in Corinth, where he was for a year and a half), guess what? He used his Greek name. There was no canceling out one for the other! That was not the culture, not in Israel and not in Greece, nor the practice. And if you want to reject that, then you are putting your heavyweight scholarly experience up against Stern, Safrai (two Hebrew University scholars, PhDs and department heads for many years), against Dr. Lawrence Schiffman (go look up his bio), Dr. Eldon Clem (world class Aramaic scholar, Hebrew Union College), Drs. David Bivin, Robert Lindsey, Joseph Frankovic and Randall Buth (all 4 are Christian scholars) and lastly, Dr. Lenny Holtzman (that's me, PhD in Jewish studies and Messianic Jew).
That kind of makes you need to argue v. proven history with some facts, and not your fiats. Until then, we'll remain calling Paul by Rabbi Shaul, and we still love Yeshua our Messiah and God with all of our hearts, minds and lives. Unless you, of course, decide otherwise.
That's nice speculation, but you don't know it is true. You assert that Paul used his name "Shaul" while in Israel. Where's the proof? You don't have it, and that's why you have dodged what the Bible actually states. Specifically, Peter, when writing to 'the twelve tribes" (Hebrew audience?) did not use Paul's supposed "real name Shaul." And Jesus, who spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue before he was converted and called him "Saul" then called him "Paul" after his conversion. So the Divine Lord is playing with nicknames is he? Brilliant. We all know that names don't really mean much to God, right? :doh:

The sum total of the Biblical evidence supports the name "Paul" as the only name he had after it was changed after his conversion. But you don't like what the Bible teaches, so you ignore the Biblical evidence and cite the uncertain opinions of human scholars concerning the general use of names. I am amazed that you can't even see what you are doing. I have supported my case with facts, logic, and the Biblical text, but you can't do that because you reject the Biblical text!

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 10:48 AM
Remember why we discuss and debate! All we have to lose are the errors we hold, and then we gain the truth! There is nothing but shame to be gained by willfully holding to false opinions!
-----------------------------------------------Well, Richard, those are your own words. Maybe YOU should follow them, too.
Like I said, you can lead a man to Romans 2:1, but you can't make him understand and believe it!

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 10:58 AM
Lastly for today...when someone complains about my use of Yiddish, they usually are admitting that they are losing a debate. To paraphrase an American patriot (with lots of love and a little literary room): 'Complaining about the grammar or spelling of your nemesis is the last refuge of a debate loser.' Of course, if you think you know Yiddish better than I do, well, we could write each other in Yiddish. I could do it. Just let me know. It'd be fun. I have to admit that my Hebrew is much much better, though. My Arabic isn't bad, either. And my Polish is understandable. But that's a harder language to read.
I don't think I know Yiddish better than you. I was just pointing out how absurd it is for you to speak so arrogantly and assume that I am ignorant when in fact you know nothing of me. You have repeatedly made false and ignorant ad hominem assertions about my "knowledge." This is the true mark of a man who is "losing a debate." You have not even addressed any of the actual points I have made. I quote specific statements in the Bible that support my case, and you quote general statements of scholars while carefully avoiding what the Bible actually states. And you pepper it all with ignorant and fallacious ad hominems! The "winner" and "loser" of this debate is self-evident to any competent reader.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 11:22 AM
My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul." Well, you better talk to him about it, pal. It is he who remained a Pharisee, and there ain't no Pharisee I'm aware of who had the name Paulos.

The "winner" and "loser" of this debate is self-evident to any competent reader. (Yes, and the winner isn't you!)

"you reject the Biblical text!" (Actually...I don't. Someday you'll have to answer for slander,my friend because your statement isn't true. Better watch out re: what you say. You're responsible for your false accusations re: others, you know). And once again, I'll bring out that it is a debate loser who resorts to such personal attack statements, especially when they are obviously false.

"I don't think I know Yiddish better than you." That's wise.

BTW, like I said, Stern, Safrai, Schiffman, Clem, Bivin, Lindsey, Frankovic and Buth all see the name issue the way that I do. But you can oppose all these men's opinions if you'd like, even though they include Bible believers (Bivin, Lindsey, Frankovic and Booth) and some of the world's greatest Jewish scholars (Stern, Safrai, Schiffman and Clem).

'I've read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew."--So have I!!! Wow! (In fact, that is what I read the Bible from, the Hebrew and Greek.)

"...(do) believers change names when they get saved, and (you)answered in the negative. Really now? Did you change yours? Doesn't seem like it. I didn't change mine. Right there you're 0 for 2, pal (batting average=.000). Re: what the book of Revelation states...I do believe that refers to a future time period. Of course the way you're going, maybe you don't!

"You should be ashamed of yourself." (And you're not ashamed of yourself for slandering me? Wow, dude, that's like hypocritical, no?)="spit on the actual written text of the Bible." Buddy, my ancestors shed blood so that your ancestors could believe in the One God of Israel, and you have the audacity to say what you did. That is shameless, and close to being anti-Semitic.

"As for the name "James" - I agree that is a lousy way to "translate" Yacov, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand because it is not an attempt to falsify the Bible as when using "Shaul" when the BIBLE uses "Paul."--Same exact thing. Quit playing with semantics here, pal. If you think Shaul is a bad and evil name ('one asked for from God', what a nice Hebrew meaning!), then James should be, too. Wasn't the rabbi's name.

They were fun to shoot.--Well, too bad you missed!

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 11:29 AM
Here are some things for you to read. But I'll use your own words again (talk about not being nice?)--'I doubt you'll learn anything from it'. Boy I hate writing those words. They're too mean. Too bad, because I think you can learn, if you want to...just look at your own quote at the bottom of your blog pages.

Ah, my test worked exactly as predicted! I was responding to your arrogance Larry. You suggested that I should read "Irony in Galatians" (which was very helpful, thanks) but then followed that helpful suggestion with the arrogant and rude admonition: "Just try it. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something." You did this in the same post where you had ignorantly and arrogantly commanded me to "Go learn some Yiddish." So I used your style and talked down to you like you do to me. And look what happened. You keep saying how much you "hate writing those words" when in fact they are your true love! I used no ad hominem in my post reviewing Friedman's book, and I used no ad hominem in my first post to you. But your posts have been filled with ad hominem attacks, so I knew if I served it back to you in the same context and style as I received it your head would explode and you would spew ten thousand new ad hominems. That's who and what you are Larry. I'm only giving you the opportunity to reveal what is in your heart to everyone on this forum. I'm rather surprised how you failed to see what I was doing, since I quoted to your the relevant verse (Rom 2:1). My strategy could not have been more obvious if I had written it in the sky with neon signs. But you couldn't see that because the arrogant can't see their own arrogance, no matter how clearly it is presented to them.

And this arrogance, by the way, is a very common characteristic of the "Messianic Judaism" cult. They set themselves up as the "true believers" in Messiah better than all those ignorant "Gentile Christians" who don't even keep the seventh day sabbath! :nono: Some, like Monte Judah, even reject whole books of the Bible (e.g. Hebrews) because it contradicts their schismatic doctrines. That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 12:00 PM
My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul." Well, you better talk to him about it, pal. It is he who remained a Pharisee, and there ain't no Pharisee I'm aware of who had the name Paulos.

The "winner" and "loser" of this debate is self-evident to any competent reader. (Yes, and the winner isn't you!)

That's absurd. I don't need to "talk to Paul" because I can read his writings. He called himself Paul. That's the name he uses for himself in the Bible and that's the name that Christ used for him. And that's the name that his Hebrew bother Peter used when writing to the twelve Hebrew tribes. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports your assertions, and I'm guessing that's why you haven't been willing to touch the Bible with a ten foot pole. I have presented this evidence three times now and you have not yet even attempted a response. You have implicitly FORFEITED the whole debate by not addressing the Biblical evidence I have presented. It is pathetic that you vainly claim victory even as you lay in the mud of defeat.



"you reject the Biblical text!" (Actually...I don't. Someday you'll have to answer for slander,my friend because your statement isn't true. Better watch out re: what you say. You're responsible for your false accusations re: others, you know). And once again, I'll bring out that it is a debate loser who resorts to such personal attack statements, especially when they are obviously false.

Ha! That's quite a lecture from a man who asserted that I "never learned Hebrew" when in fact I have read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew. You are a case study in Romans 2:1 dude. :lol:

There is no "slander" if my statement is true. I have proof that Friedman changed the actual words written in the Bible from "Paul" to "Shaul" in Acts 23:11 on page 49 of his book. You have shown full support of Friedman and his book, so I have no reason to believe that you would disagree with him on this point. And besides that, it is a common practice amongst Messianic Jews. So if my statement concerning you specifically is wrong, I would be happy to correct it as soon as you make your position clear. But you didn't do that even as you complained that my statement was false. So now the burden is no you. You need to answer this question: Was Friedman wrong to change the written word from Paul to Shaul in Acts 23:11? Is it wrong to change the words of the Bible to make it say something it does not say?



BTW, like I said, Stern, Safrai, Schiffman, Clem, Bivin, Lindsey, Frankovic and Buth all see the name issue the way that I do. But you can oppose all these men's opinions if you'd like, even though they include Bible believers (Bivin, Lindsey, Frankovic and Booth) and some of the world's greatest Jewish scholars (Stern, Safrai, Schiffman and Clem).

Oh my ... that's a hard one. I can oppose the facts concerning what the Bible actually states, or I can agree with the biased non-biblical opinions of some men. Let me think about that for a while ....



'I've read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew."--So have I!!! Wow! (In fact, that is what I read the Bible from, the Hebrew and Greek.)

Fascinating. You falsely asserted that I hadn't studied Hebrew. You lecture me on how I will be held "responsible for your false accusations." But when your error is exposed, you skip on past it whistling as if nothing happened. No need to apologize. No need to even acknowledge your error. Nothing. Zilch. Fascinating "character" you have developed. It must have taken years to perfect such blind hypocrisy.



"You should be ashamed of yourself." (And you're not ashamed of yourself for slandering me? Wow, dude, that's like hypocritical, no?)="spit on the actual written text of the Bible." Buddy, my ancestors shed blood so that your ancestors could believe in the One God of Israel, and you have the audacity to say what you did. That is shameless, and close to being anti-Semitic.

Ha! Now you are lecturing me on "hypocrisy" again, even after you failed to acknowledge your own false assertion about my ability to read Hebrew. You are now Dr. "Romans 2:1" Sabra to me dude.

And the great glory of your fleshly arrogance is now out in full regalia. You think that the Jews are "special" and "better" because God used them to bring forth the Messiah? Amazing, absolutely amazing. I suspected this was in your heart, but I would have thought you could hide it better.

I am as far from "anti-semitic" as anyone could be. Your constant SLANDER in that regard shows your soul is utterly corrupt and devoid of any desire for truth. You lecture me on the evils of slander and then repeat that sin many times. You really are Dr. "Romans 2:1" Sabra.

Also, you have not dealt with any of what the Bible actually teaches on this matter. You have generated a shit-storm of ad hominem. Why don't you see you can't win a debate this way? You need to address the facts that I have presented. Merely calling names like "anti-semitic" is absurd beyond description. It makes you look like a fool.

dr_sabra
07-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Oh, my, temper, temper, Richard. And you do not hide your anti-Semitism very well. Calling Jews names, whether we are Messianic Jews, Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed, is not material at this point. On your own blog it is quite clear that you don't like Jews very much. Hmmm. Wonder what the Bible has to say about that, Richard.

"..or I can agree with the biased non-biblical opinions of some men. Let me think about that for a while ...."--Again, ignorance comes out. Half of the men quoted are Christian believers; one is from the Assembly of God, two are Baptists, one is evangelical. Nice job judging them without ever reading anything they ever wrote!! The other half are Jewish scholars (and it seems like you have problems with Jews, right? Naw, that couldn't be)

"I am as far from "anti-semitic" as anyone could be."--I've heard that one before, Richard. You just called a Jewish person some pretty nasty names on your blog. And it's up to Jewish people to assess if you're anti-Semitic, not up to you and your incredibly 'objective' perspective.

"Messianic Judaism" cult.=anti-Semitic insinuation there. That's fairly clear!

"So I used your style and talked down to you like you do to me."--what admirable behaviour, Richard. Wow. That'll shine your light real bright. You really are one brilliant dude, aren't you?

"That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down."--Well, then you utterly failed. The great, great majority of feedback to his works are positive. Of course, you can be Judge and Jury and think everyone else is wrong. Because that's what you're doing. Try reading some feedback on his book. Does your Judge and Jury attitude smack of arrogance? Naw...couldn't be. (Oh, and Friedman happens to be Jewish, too! Hmm..anyone notice a pattern here?)

Richard Amiel McGough
07-16-2011, 01:59 PM
Oh, my, temper, temper, Richard. And you do not hide your anti-Semitism very well. Calling Jews names, whether we are Messianic Jews, Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed, is not material at this point. On your own blog it is quite clear that you don't like Jews very much. Hmmm. Wonder what the Bible has to say about that, Richard.

Well look at that. Not a single word of substance that has anything to do with the facts I have presented. How typical for someone who can't support his arguments.

And what blog post are you talking about? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You seem utterly ignorant about the most basic elements of how to present a case. You need to present the facts that support your assertions dude! Merely saying that some unspecified statement on some unspecified blog post indicates I "don't like Jews very much" is utterly meaningless and moronic, not to mention false.

And given that you titled your hypocritical post "Mr. Nasty" you are now christened Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1 Sabra. Congrats!



"..or I can agree with the biased non-biblical opinions of some men. Let me think about that for a while ...."--Again, ignorance comes out. Half of the men quoted are Christian believers; one is from the Assembly of God, two are Baptists, one is evangelical. Nice job judging them without ever reading anything they ever wrote!! The other half are Jewish scholars (and it seems like you have problems with Jews, right? Naw, that couldn't be)

If there was any "ignorance" it was in your post. You merely cited a bunch of names and claimed that they all proved your case. How absurd is that? Did you provide any actual quotes or evidence? Nope. And then you have the audacity to say "Nice job judging them without ever reading anything they ever wrote!!" when you did not provide any evidence that they supported your case! Man, you are one piece of work. And besides that, your appeal to their authority is a logical fallacy. You can't provide any real facts from the Bible to support your case, so you ignore what is written and you cite authorities without even bothering to provide any evidence that they really support your case. You are one of the weakest debaters I have ever seen.



"I am as far from "anti-semitic" as anyone could be."--I've heard that one before, Richard. You just called a Jewish person some pretty nasty names on your blog. And it's up to Jewish people to assess if you're anti-Semitic, not up to you and your incredibly 'objective' perspective.

Again, you make an assertion without providing any evidence. I have no idea what you are talking about. You have not stated what post you are talking about. Are you brain-damaged or what? You are "debating" on the level of an adolescent. And you continue with your bullshit "antisemitism" slander.

So tell me, what variety of "Messianic Judaism" do you adhere to? Do you agree with Monte Judah that the Book of Hebrews should be chucked out of the Bible? Are you associated with a named congregation? Do you have a web presence where I can learn about what you believe?

So you go around "assessing" people as "antisemitic" if they successfully refute your false ideas about the Bible? Brilliant! By that standard, I would guess there are few that are not "antisemitic." Your sickness is really shining now dude. You are like someone who shouts RACISM if anyone disagrees with Obama's policies.



"Messianic Judaism" cult.=anti-Semitic insinuation there. That's fairly clear!

Bullshit. It says nothing about Judaism at all. It says nothing about Jews at all. It is a statement that some cults are calling themselves "Messianic Jews." The fact that there are such cults is obvious. Just look at Monte Judah. His rejection of the Book of Hebrews is a case in point. Others question all of Paul's writings. It is not antisemitic to state the facts.



"So I used your style and talked down to you like you do to me."--what admirable behaviour, Richard. Wow. That'll shine your light real bright. You really are one brilliant dude, aren't you?

It worked, didn't it? You have fully exposed the crap that was in your heart. This thread began with NO AD HOMINEM in my first posts. Then you introduced your arrogance, so I responded in kind knowing that your character would be exposed. It worked, but you don't want to admit it. No surprise there.

Remember, all you had to do was present some facts to refute what I wrote, but you chose to spew shit. Nice move dude.



"That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down."--Well, then you utterly failed. The great, great majority of feedback to his works are positive. Of course, you can be Judge and Jury and think everyone else is wrong. Because that's what you're doing. Try reading some feedback on his book. Does your Judge and Jury attitude smack of arrogance? Naw...couldn't be. (Oh, and Friedman happens to be Jewish, too! Hmm..anyone notice a pattern here?)
No, I'm not the "judge and jury." I presented facts, and the facts remain unrefuted. You have not even touched them! The fact that others like his work implies nothing about the problems I found with it. Don't you know anything about truth? It's not a democracy. Truth remains truth no matter how many reject it, and a lie is a lie no matter how many believe it. It really seems strange that you don't understand such simple things.

dr_sabra
07-20-2011, 07:35 AM
Well Richard, let me disagree with you... it's clear that you do think quite highly of your opinions, and do believe that your opinions are the only right way to understand anything. That makes it highly doubtful that I'd want to really dialogue with you, dude.
Your use of such great words like "bullshit" and "crap" is quite impressive, too. You can be really proud of your extensive vocabulary. You know, my uncle of blessed memory (you probably wouldn't like him, he was a Messianic Jewish rabbi) used to say that anyone who resorts to cursing in a discussion is doing so out of a sense of losing control over a discussion. Hmmm...

dr_sabra
07-20-2011, 07:41 AM
It's interesting how you diss the writings of such prominent Bible scholars as the men I mentioned. I guess they have nothing pertinent to say to any discussion, right Richard? Of course, had you actually read anything that they wrote, you'd see otherwise. You'd see that Bivin, Lindsey, Buth and Young have spent their professional careers studying and expounding on the meaning (from the Greek text) of Yeshua's teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A waste of time, Richard? Apparently, if I understand your words. Flusser, Safrai, Lapide and Stern, as well as Friedman, have from the Jewish side, also spent their careers in the understanding of who Yeshua was as a Jewish rabbi and as the Messiah. A waste of time? Try reading their works and see, instead of blindly criticizing and mass lumping people together, as you do as Mr. Judge and Jury (I stand by my impression that you enjoy doing that). Watch: you'll do it again if you respond to me. I'll point it out in my next post.
Now to clarify matters: I believe all 66 books of the Bible are the inspired words of G-d. That would include the book of Hebrews. But of course you would rather be Mr. Judge and think that I didn't...well, you are wrong.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 11:53 AM
Well Richard, let me disagree with you... it's clear that you do think quite highly of your opinions, and do believe that your opinions are the only right way to understand anything. That makes it highly doubtful that I'd want to really dialogue with you, dude.

I don't think it's really as clear as you think. I would have much more reason to say the same of you, wouldn't I? I mean, you are the one who began slinging unnecessary and invalid ad hominems. So grow up already.




Your use of such great words like "bullshit" and "crap" is quite impressive, too. You can be really proud of your extensive vocabulary. You know, my uncle of blessed memory (you probably wouldn't like him, he was a Messianic Jewish rabbi) used to say that anyone who resorts to cursing in a discussion is doing so out of a sense of losing control over a discussion. Hmmm...
Again, you waste everyone's time, including your own, writing bullshit that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. This is typical of your posts. You wasted everyone's time writing ad hominens and other logical fallacies like appeal to authority (without even quoting a single word those "authorities" wrote!) and now you think to make points by criticizing my use of common slang? Like I said, grow up already "Doctor."

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2011, 12:00 PM
It's interesting how you diss the writings of such prominent Bible scholars as the men I mentioned. I guess they have nothing pertinent to say to any discussion, right Richard? Of course, had you actually read anything that they wrote, you'd see otherwise. You'd see that Bivin, Lindsey, Buth and Young have spent their professional careers studying and expounding on the meaning (from the Greek text) of Yeshua's teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I didn't "diss their writings." I didn't need to because you didn't bother to cite a single thing they wrote! What kiind of moronism are you suffering from? I already explained that merely citing a list of "authorities" and then claiming that they "prove your point" without presenting any actual evidence is absurd in the extreme. You really don't have a clue how to present an argument.



A waste of time, Richard? Apparently, if I understand your words. Flusser, Safrai, Lapide and Stern, as well as Friedman, have from the Jewish side, also spent their careers in the understanding of who Yeshua was as a Jewish rabbi and as the Messiah. A waste of time? Try reading their works and see, instead of blindly criticizing and mass lumping people together, as you do as Mr. Judge and Jury (I stand by my impression that you enjoy doing that). Watch: you'll do it again if you respond to me. I'll point it out in my next post.

Yes, it is a waste of time for you to claim that a list of names is all you need to support your argument.



Now to clarify matters: I believe all 66 books of the Bible are the inspired words of G-d. That would include the book of Hebrews. But of course you would rather be Mr. Judge and think that I didn't...well, you are wrong.
I never said you didn't believe in the 66 books, or that you believed Hebrews should be thrown out. I used that as an extreme example of how "Messianic Judaism" contains schismatic groups who make up their own crap and sell it as the "true roots of Christianity."

It would help if you responded to what I have actually written.

dr_sabra
07-20-2011, 11:17 PM
But you did diss them, my friend. You should pay attention to your tone. Read what you wrote about them and their inherent worth as commentators on scripture. That will help you see what you actually wrote. Jog your memory a bit. Better yet: why don't you actually read something written by them? That way you won't be doing what you accuse others of...not responding to a written text. Try it. It isn't my job to quote their highlighted teachings to you. It is more profitable for you to actually read a full work that one of them has written, especially one written on Yeshua's teachings. I'm recommending them, not quoting them. That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at someone's scholarly works. That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at how Messianic Jews and a growing number of Christian commentators understand Yeshua's teachings. If you're not interested, you won't. And that's certainly in our context a 'diss'--to knock authors while not reading them.

You strongly intimated that Messianic Jews don't believe in the scripture. Again, check your tone when you write. You also strongly intimate other things about Messianic Jews, and thus, about all Jews, since we are but a part of the whole. Examples:..."Messianic Judaism" cult. They set themselves up as the "true believers" in Messiah better than all those ignorant "Gentile Christians" who don't even keep the seventh day sabbath!" Richard: that is very judgmental (Judge & Jury again), and is demeaning, both of Messianic Jews and of many Christians. It is not true as well. Now let's take Monte Judah, and remember that you mentioned him, not me. First off, Mr. Judah is not considered part of any Messianic Jewish movement. Nearly all Messianic Jews disagree strongly with his basic ideas. The entire "two house" idea that he promotes is rejected by 95% or higher of Messianic Jews. That is what forms the backbone of his belief system. Check out the MJAA or UMJC websites for what 95% of Messianic Jews believe about that idea. So your whole comment re: him is worthless. You set him up as some type of example of who we are, and he is none. I could compare you to the WeCanKnow.com people; they probably have as much similarity to you as Monte Judah does to me. The only similarity between most Messianic Jews and Monte Judah are a few similar beliefs. Now, your gross generalization (you know, the infamous 'they'--as in your meaning, 'Messianic Jews'='they set themselves up...' seems like you are lumping all of us together as cultish. All of Messianic Jews: MJAA, UMJC, AMB, HCA...Are you, Richard?

"That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down." I will comment on this again. You took nothing down. Friedman's book is going into yet another new printing. It's one of the most popular ones in Messianic Jewish circles, a best seller. People's lives are being changed to follow Messiah with MORE devotion and MORE intensity due to Friedman's book. He encourages people to live in that way: to love Messiah with their whole lives. That's what people who buy the book are saying (as well as what his students say about him). And again, I stand by my words that you totally misunderstood who his audience was and who he is speaking to, and why. But if you're closed minded to finding out the truth of that, you'll remain in high denial. Whatever, dude.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-21-2011, 05:26 PM
It isn't my job to quote their highlighted teachings to you.

Wrong. If you cite someone as supporting your case, it is your responsibility to state what they wrote that supports your case. Merely listing a bunch of names is meaningless. It absurd that you don't understand such a basic fact.



That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at how Messianic Jews and a growing number of Christian commentators understand Yeshua's teachings. If you're not interested, you won't. And that's certainly in our context a 'diss'--to knock authors while not reading them.

I quoted the exact words of Friedman, and compared them with waht the Scripture actually teaches. You have not responded to any of the facts I presented.



You strongly intimated that Messianic Jews don't believe in the scripture.

No, I cited a specific Messianic Jewish teacher who explicitly rejects Scripture.



Again, check your tone when you write.

Tone? Who are you to tell others to "check" their tone? You began this interaction with a very shitty tone, telling me to "Go learn Yiddish" and stating that I "don't know Hebrew" when in fact you knew nothing of my knowledge. And then you spewed out a flood of moronic ad hominems, and now you lecture me on "tone"? Get a mirror "dude."



You also strongly intimate other things about Messianic Jews, and thus, about all Jews, since we are but a part of the whole.

False. I neither said nor implied anything about "Jews" per se. You have a profound problem with basic logic.



Examples:..."Messianic Judaism" cult. They set themselves up as the "true believers" in Messiah better than all those ignorant "Gentile Christians" who don't even keep the seventh day sabbath!" Richard: that is very judgmental (Judge & Jury again), and is demeaning, both of Messianic Jews and of many Christians. It is not true as well. Now let's take Monte Judah, and remember that you mentioned him, not me. First off, Mr. Judah is not considered part of any Messianic Jewish movement. Nearly all Messianic Jews disagree strongly with his basic ideas. The entire "two house" idea that he promotes is rejected by 95% or higher of Messianic Jews. That is what forms the backbone of his belief system. Check out the MJAA or UMJC websites for what 95% of Messianic Jews believe about that idea. So your whole comment re: him is worthless. You set him up as some type of example of who we are, and he is none. I could compare you to the WeCanKnow.com people; they probably have as much similarity to you as Monte Judah does to me. The only similarity between most Messianic Jews and Monte Judah are a few similar beliefs. Now, your gross generalization (you know, the infamous 'they'--as in your meaning, 'Messianic Jews'='they set themselves up...' seems like you are lumping all of us together as cultish. All of Messianic Jews: MJAA, UMJC, AMB, HCA...Are you, Richard?

I grant that my statements were too general. I should have used words like "some Messianic Jews" etc.

But this is not the real issue. The real issue of this thread is my review of Friedman's book. As far as I can tell, you have not refuted anything I wrote.



"That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down." I will comment on this again. You took nothing down. Friedman's book is going into yet another new printing. It's one of the most popular ones in Messianic Jewish circles, a best seller. People's lives are being changed to follow Messiah with MORE devotion and MORE intensity due to Friedman's book. He encourages people to live in that way: to love Messiah with their whole lives. That's what people who buy the book are saying (as well as what his students say about him). And again, I stand by my words that you totally misunderstood who his audience was and who he is speaking to, and why. But if you're closed minded to finding out the truth of that, you'll remain in high denial. Whatever, dude.
It doesn't matter how many printings there are of Friedman's book. Truth is not established by the number of printings. If you think that Christians are learning to "love Messiah" by acting like fake "Torah observant" pseudo-Jews, then there is nothing I can do to open your eyes. I had a "Torah observant" Christian show up on this forum when I first opened it. She told me how she would pick and choose which bits and pieces of the Torah were convenient to obey. She said she would eat a little pork or lobster (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3893&highlight=pork#post3893) offered by her friends so she wouldn't "offend" them, and she considered herself to be "Torah observant!" I explained that she was making a mockery of the Torah which demands DEATH for disobedience, but she did not understand. And neither do you. You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law? If not, why are you promoting Christian to pretend to "observe Torah?"

dr_sabra
07-22-2011, 08:47 AM
I will gladly share 2 things with you, Richard. First off, you seem to have some kind of fantasy debate set up between you and I. I am not debating you. There is no audience of judge and jury, unless according to your 'debate' scenario, it's you (which as I've written, seems to be the case here). What I am doing is telling you what I know about Dr. Friedman's book--the intended audience, as well as, lately, the high popularity of the book. So give up on your weird fantasy of this being some kind of cosmic debate with a fantasy audience and fantasy judges who hold scorecards. Geez, Richard, I'm just trying to get you to see that you are mis-perceiving Friedman! That' it. I care neither to debate, nor to try to convince of you very much, being that I've seen just how close minded and stuck to your opinions that you are. And that, to be honest, makes me really sad.

"I cited a specific Messianic Jewish teacher who explicitly rejects Scripture."
Yes, but for the purpose of 'incriminating' those of us who call ourselves Messianic Jews. Look again at what you said and its context. It truly, clearly and loudly came off that way.

"You have a profound problem with basic logic." Not really. I passed (with A's) 6 logic classes in university. I'm pretty good at it, actually. Your logical assumptions, meant mostly to try and defend your stuck opinions, again, are also illogical. Who would make a claim about an author's intentions without first consulting the author? Who then would, when told by a close student of the author, who historically knows the author's intent, would make such a fuss as you are, standing on an opinion that indeed defies logic!

"you have not refuted anything I wrote." I have told you that's not my job. But yours IS to make sure you are right about this author's intentions. And you're wrong, but are too stuck on your own opinion to ask the author. Now that's illogical!

"You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah." No I haven't. I love the Torah, study it, and live to honor its Author. How that rejects the Torah is totally illogical!! (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Shaul himself loved the Torah, and kept it marvelously, as it should be kept (cf. Acts 28.17). According to what I'm hearing from you, the Torah is done away with? That would make Yeshua a liar. And he isn't (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).

You quote Gal. 4.21, but if you'd read Nanos book which I recommended to you, you'd see that there are many different ways to understand this scripture. Yours is not in tune with mine. So I imagine that makes you right, automatically, Or would you actually like to actually discuss this? Do you know Greek at all? You're looking at an idiom, being 'under the law'. It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way in order to achieve entrance into the world to come. I certainly (as well as 99% of Messianic Jews that I know) do not do that. (Nor do I ever eat pork or lobster, by the way!)

"Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law?" No. Not if you understand what Shaul meant by this idiom.

dr_sabra
07-22-2011, 08:50 AM
It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way
The above should read "it usually means the commandments of the Torah are observed in a legalistic way..."

Shabbat shalom!
Lenny

Richard Amiel McGough
07-22-2011, 09:51 AM
I will gladly share 2 things with you, Richard. First off, you seem to have some kind of fantasy debate set up between you and I. I am not debating you. There is no audience of judge and jury, unless according to your 'debate' scenario, it's you (which as I've written, seems to be the case here). What I am doing is telling you what I know about Dr. Friedman's book--the intended audience, as well as, lately, the high popularity of the book. So give up on your weird fantasy of this being some kind of cosmic debate with a fantasy audience and fantasy judges who hold scorecards. Geez, Richard, I'm just trying to get you to see that you are mis-perceiving Friedman! That' it. I care neither to debate, nor to try to convince of you very much, being that I've seen just how close minded and stuck to your opinions that you are. And that, to be honest, makes me really sad.

What a joke! You say you are not "debating" and then you ramble on attempting to refute my arguments. So what am I supposed to do now? You have made it clear you do not want to enter into rational discourse on this topic. You have thrown out a mountain of fallacious ad hominems and continue to do so even after they have been exposed. Then you call yourself an "A" student in logic? :doh:

Now let's look at the points you have raised:



"You have a profound problem with basic logic." Not really. I passed (with A's) 6 logic classes in university. I'm pretty good at it, actually. Your logical assumptions, meant mostly to try and defend your stuck opinions, again, are also illogical. Who would make a claim about an author's intentions without first consulting the author? Who then would, when told by a close student of the author, who historically knows the author's intent, would make such a fuss as you are, standing on an opinion that indeed defies logic!

You don't know my "logical assumptions" and you don't know if I have any "stuck opinions" and you don't know my motives, and you haven't presented any evidence that my "assumptions" are "illogical." Therefore, you committed four logical fallacies in that one sentence! Who gave you your "A" in Logic? The Mad Hatter?

And you seem to have a fundamental problem with memory. I already answered your false assertion that I "could not know the intention" of an author without actually "being" or "asking" the author. I answered that in Post #5 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33255&postcount=5) using Friedman's own words. You never refuted the evidence I presented. And since you can't refute it, you now pretend that we are not "debating" at all so there is no need for you to actually support your statements with facts! Brilliant strategy Doctor. You need never fear being proven wrong with a strategy like that!



"you have not refuted anything I wrote." I have told you that's not my job. But yours IS to make sure you are right about this author's intentions. And you're wrong, but are too stuck on your own opinion to ask the author. Now that's illogical!

So there we have it. It's "not your job" to refute what I have written. Your job is only to ASSERT I am wrong without actually presenting any evidence. You are one brilliant internet "non-debater" Doctor! Brilliant! I can state categorically that no one could ever refute your non-arguments.



"You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah." No I haven't. I love the Torah, study it, and live to honor its Author. How that rejects the Torah is totally illogical!! (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Shaul himself loved the Torah, and kept it marvelously, as it should be kept (cf. Acts 28.17). According to what I'm hearing from you, the Torah is done away with? That would make Yeshua a liar. And he isn't (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).

You quote Gal. 4.21, but if you'd read Nanos book which I recommended to you, you'd see that there are many different ways to understand this scripture. Yours is not in tune with mine. So I imagine that makes you right, automatically, Or would you actually like to actually discuss this? Do you know Greek at all? You're looking at an idiom, being 'under the law'. It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way in order to achieve entrance into the world to come. I certainly (as well as 99% of Messianic Jews that I know) do not do that. (Nor do I ever eat pork or lobster, by the way!)

"Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law?" No. Not if you understand what Shaul meant by this idiom.

The Torah commands circumcision. Paul rejected circumcision. Your argument fails on that point alone.

Furthermore, you have failed to understand the entire book of Galatians. It does not rest on the phrase "under the law" alone. Paul made the relation between "Torah/Law" and the New Covenant explicit in the allegory of Hagar = Bondage = Torah and Sarah = Freedom = New Covenant. That's why I quoted the whole section in my previous post. Here, let me do it again with highlights so you will know what I am getting at:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? [Paul is setting up the whole topic here.] 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. [Do you understand? Hagar = Bondage = First Covenant = Torah and Sarah = Freedom = New Covenant.] 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
You claim to be an "A" student of logic, but can't understand the logic Paul is presenting here? He says that Christians are not related to the "bondwomen" at all! They are children born of the freewoman and they are free from the bondage of the Law. This coheres precisely with what Paul taught elsewhere:
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Are you or are you not "free from the law?"

Are you or are you not born of the freewoman?

Why do you go about pretending to be Torah-observant when Paul chastised Peter for that very error? Why do I have to quote the entire book of Galatians to you?
Galatians 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who seemed to be something -- whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man -- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. 11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
Paul's teaching here is confirmed throughout his letters. For example:
Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Paul was explicit. The righteousness of the New Covenant is APART FROM THE LAW. Why then do you promote keeping the law?

In as much as Messianic Judaism promotes "Torah-observance" it is a schismatic cult that directly contradicts the plain teachings of the New Testament.

I can see why you don't want to "debate" this topic. Every word of the Bible contradicts your position.

dr_sabra
07-22-2011, 11:19 PM
"I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question!" A meaningless 'motto'. You don't seem to have any questions, Richard. Just all of the 'stuck' answers.

The Torah commands circumcision for whom? I.e. I am circumcised. Did my parents' condemn me? And why would Shaul have wanted to circumcise a Gentile? (Titus). There's a fundamental issue there that seems very clouded in your mind. Neither Friedman nor I would ever say that a Gentile should be circumcised (though most American males, from what I understand, are. Does that condemn them?)

Do you know what a midrashic homily (derash she'mevusas al-midrash) is? That is what we have in Galatians 4. Shaul uses the story of Hagar, Ishmael and the reference to the two 'mountains' to explain a particular point, one that I am not going to 'debate' with you, since your opinion of what it means is the Gospel, and everyone else is wrong. If you forget that the entire context of Galatians is that of false teachers (who probably weren't even Jewish) teaching that one had to keep the mitzvot of Torah in their particular prescribed manner to earn entrance into the world to come, and Shaul was fighting to uphold the Acts 15 decision, then you may understand his chapter 4 points. Otherwise, you really won't. Jewish civilization has NEVER believed that the Torah is to be kept in one certain manner in order to earn entrance into the world to come. That is a huge misunderstanding. In fact, reading people's work who believe this is really sad--some of the early church 'fathers' fall into that error (in history, a very few Jewish offshoots espoused something similar, but it's not been mainstream thought whatsoever).

"You don't know my "logical assumptions." You're right. I can't find them!

The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Look at how Shaul lived : 'ego Pharisais eimi', he stated, when he could have had this written in the past tense. It is clearly in the present tense, which shows us his identification still in the middle of the 1st century.

Lots more to say, but I'll refrain for the moment to see if you really discuss things instead of throwing around the 'ad hominem' phrases, as you clearly don't think that you do this, too.

Shabbat shalom

Richard Amiel McGough
07-23-2011, 08:27 AM
Do you know what a midrashic homily (derash she'mevusas al-midrash) is? That is what we have in Galatians 4. Shaul uses the story of Hagar, Ishmael and the reference to the two 'mountains' to explain a particular point, one that I am not going to 'debate' with you, since your opinion of what it means is the Gospel, and everyone else is wrong.

... The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).

Of course you won't "debate" that point - you know you can't. So what's the point of posting?

The text is plain. You deny it because it contradicts your religion. Pretty simple stuff.

Paul explicitly states that the "two mountains" are the "two covenants." And then he compares and contrasts those two covenants and shows that one leads to bondage and the other leads to freedom. He says that one is of the flesh, and the other is of the Spirit and the Promise, which is the term he uses for the Gospel. He then says that Christians are born of the promise (Gospel) and "heavenly Jerusalem" whereas unbelieving Jews identified with the "earthly Jerusalem" were of the flesh, in bondage, persecuting Christians, and should be "cast out" like Hagar. What could be more plain or obvious? But you can't speak in terms that are plain or obvious, and indeed, you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it. There's nothing I can do about that.

But if you want to talk about what the Bible actually states, I'm all ears.

You say that the "New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20)." This is not what Paul states in Galatians 4. He explicitly compares and contrasts the two covenants. If you can't see this, you can't see anything. He says the Old is "of the flesh" and the New is "of the spirit." There is no greater "contradiction" possible in the Bible. Later in the same letter Paul says that spirit and flesh are "are contrary the one to the other" (Gal 5:17). And everything Paul teaches in Galatians concerning the Law vs. Gospel is fully coherent with everything he teaches in all his other letters. But you are absolutely blind to what the Bible teaches because it contradicts the doctrines of your religion. You can't even get Paul's name right no matter how many times he signs his letters "Paul." That's truly pathetic on a grand scale.

dr_sabra
07-23-2011, 12:14 PM
I won't debate because you don't debate...you pontificate. Period. Anybody ever tell you that? I'll bet I'm not the first. Additionally, I am not here to debate. I am here telling you whom Dr. Friedman's book was intended for, but you are afraid to contact him to ask him. I don't blame you.

"you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it." As previously stated, I accept all 66 books as the inspired revelation of God. What I don't accept is your view of some of it. I guess that makes me wrong, right?

Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

Try reading Mark Nanos on Galatians 4. Until you do, I won't bother trying to tell you how I read it. Nanos' book (the Irony of Galatians) will give you more light on Galatians 4 than you've seen in awhile. Up for the challenge, or would you rather hide behind Marcion's ideas?

"I never said you didn't believe in the 66 books." I think you have now= "you refuse to accept it." There you go. Black and white.

In spite of our differences, I bless you.

Lenny

Richard Amiel McGough
07-23-2011, 01:22 PM
I won't debate because you don't debate...you pontificate. Period.

Ha! You state that with the infallible certainty of the Pontifex Maximus himself. All you need now is a pointy hat. You even followed your assertion with the single word sentence "Period" which is designed to end all discussion. What a joke! There is none so blind as those who accuse others of what they themselves do. You have no self-awareness whatsoever. You are the incarnation of Romans 2:1.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
This is how you earned your illustrious title of Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1 Sabra.



"you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it." As previously stated, I accept all 66 books as the inspired revelation of God. What I don't accept is your view of some of it. I guess that makes me wrong, right?

Oh, really? So now you are saying that it is only "my view" that Paul's allegory is about the difference between the Old and New Covenants? It doesn't matter that he said "these are the two covenants?" Brilliant. It's no wonder you won't "debate" me! You can't admit the most plain and obvious facts of the text! Are you asserting that it's only "my view" that he said one covenant was "of the flesh" and led to "bondage" and corresponded to physical Jerusalem? Is that only my view??? And it's only "my view" that the other covenant is "of the Spirit" and "of Promise" like the Gospel, and is of the "Jerusalem that is above?"

You deny everything the text says, and then run and hide, screaming "I WON'T DEBATE YOU LALALLALALA" with your fingers firmly plugging your ears. And all the while you think that you are absolutely right without any question, and anyone who presents evidence contradicting your blah-blah-blah interpretation is "pontificating." And on and on and on and on your words bubble up from the babble of your malformed mind without one of them actually dealing with the issue at hand. Wowsers indeed! :eek:

Your effort to flee from the plain and obvious meaning of the text makes you look like a poster child for the post-modern wasteland. There is no meaning in the text! It's just one man's view versus another.



Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

If your interpretation of that passage is correct, then why are you not teaching all Christians that they must obey Torah? You teaching is logically incoherent.

Rose
07-23-2011, 02:09 PM
Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

Lenny

Hi dr sabra,

What I hear Jesus saying in Matthew 5 is that he has not come to destroy the law by abolishing it, but rather by "fulfilling the law" where he transforms it from a law of "works" to one of intents of the heart.

Jesus goes on to admonish the Pharisee's NOT to break any of the laws, or teach men to break the laws because fulfilling the law is not done by breaking it, but by transforming it to a spiritual level.
Matt.5:17-19 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 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.

Keeping the law wholly, or partially does nothing to elevate one to a place of living in the New Covenant...where the Law has been transformed to loving your neighbor as yourself, upon which hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.
Matt. 22:39-40 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.All the Best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-23-2011, 02:41 PM
Try reading Mark Nanos on Galatians 4. Until you do, I won't bother trying to tell you how I read it. Nanos' book (the Irony of Galatians) will give you more light on Galatians 4 than you've seen in awhile.

I found a pdf article by Nanos dealing with the allegory in Galatians 4 here (http://www.marknanos.com/Allegory-Web-Temp-5-2-04.pdf). He goes on and and on and on :blah: :blah: :blah: but never clearly states his case. And that's why you can't present his case either. He adds so much "interpretation" and words piled upon words that the actual meaning of the text is completely obscured.

So here's the deal: You claim that Nanos has found an "interpretation" of Galatians 4:21-31 that proves "my view" of that passage is invalid. So why don't you just quote Nanos and be done with it? Or if Nanos is too wordy, why don't you just write a short paragraph of four of five sentences that states his conclusions in plain language so we all can see and understand?

Why don't you do that? I'll tell you why you don't do that - because you CANNOT do that any more than Nanos can do it! He has not produced a valid interpretation that coheres with itself let alone the rest of Paul's teachings. If you think I'm wrong then you know what you need to do: simply produce the brief overview of his thesis in a few sentences.

Come on Lenny. I dare ya! I double-dare ya!

dr_sabra
07-24-2011, 11:52 AM
Richard, my sweet friend, who is throwing around the 'ad hominems' now?
You sound like a person with a real temper there, buddy. You may want to check it at the door.

"Nanos has found an "interpretation" of Galatians 4:21-31 that proves "my view" of that passage is invalid. So why don't you just quote Nanos and be done with it?" Not what I said. What I said is that Nanos' analysis of Galatians 4 will show you that there are other interpretations of the text that exist, and that deal with both the Greek text, AND are by people who believe that Galatians is G-d's inspired word. You have to read his full book, "The Irony of Galatians". You reacted to something else he wrote, not to what I suggested. In addition, I'm happy to quote Nanos. I'll take a look at his book this weekend, and share with you his main points next week when I blog. Up for it? It'll be fun.

Now, speaking about dares, I triple dare you to actually read Nanos book!! I'm one upping your double dare. Come on, Richard. I triple dare you to read this book that is outside the box that you're stuck in. (I'm using your boorish language here. Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? But consider yourself triple-dared). And I triple dare you to ask Dr. Friedman who his intended audience is, and if he tells Gentiles that they should keep the commandments of the Torah in the same manner that Jewish people should. Triple dared twice! Yo!

You haven't answered Yeshua's words in Mt. 5.16-20. What did he say to do with the commandments? Ignore them? Cancel it? Claim they vanished like smoke? Spiritualize it away? Bury them underground? Say that they're no longer valid? Tell me what he said. It's pretty simple. In black and white.

Your pal Lenny

dr_sabra
07-24-2011, 01:14 PM
Hi Rose. Thanks for responding. I appreciate it, and I appreciate your tone. However, I do not agree with your perspective. Let me tell you why:
"What I hear Jesus saying in Matthew 5 is that he has not come to destroy the law by abolishing it, but rather by "fulfilling the law" where he transforms it from a law of "works" to one of intents of the heart. "--the text states that Yeshua came to 'pleerosai' the commandments of the Torah. This word doesn't mean what you state. It means to 'fill up'. It doesn't mean 'to abolish'. It doesn't mean to 'cancel'. It doesn't mean to 'transform it', as you state. You are stating a very nice, sweet thing, but it's not in the text. That's my problem with what you said. Either way, whether by 'abolishing it' or 'fulfilling it', you read him to be destroying the 'law'. That is not plausible.
The commandments of the Torah never were a 'law of works'. What does that even mean? The Jewish world has never considered the commandments something to be kept legalistically in order to earn one's way into the world to come. Try to find this in modern Jewish thought, or in historical Jewish thought. Very hard! You are dealing with Yeshua's words from a set perspective based on the interpretations of the early church fathers (like Augustine) and with the anti-Semite and heretic, Marcion. They believed something similar to what you're stating. The words of Yeshua are true and right; the words of Shaul, as well. But watch out through which lenses you read their words!

"Jesus goes on to admonish the Pharisee's NOT to break any of the laws, or teach men to break the laws because fulfilling the law is not done by breaking it, but by transforming it to a spiritual level." This is not stated in the text whatsoever. How did you come up with "transforming it to a spiritual level"? What does this even mean?

"Keeping the law wholly, or partially does nothing to elevate one to a place of living in the New Covenant...where the Law has been transformed to loving your neighbor as yourself, upon which hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.
Matt. 22:39-40 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

What is 'the Law?' Are you referring to Genesis-Deuteronomy? If you are, are you aware that 80% of those books is not legal matter whatsoever. Or are you referring to the 613 commandments in those books, which are termed by Shaul 'good, just and holy?' When Yeshua taught that all the legal matter in the Torah can be summed up by Lev. 19.18b, he was not saying that there was a 'transformation of the Law', as you put it. Where are those words stated by him? What does this even mean? It is ethereal language with no practical meaning. It sounds to me more of a Hellenistic idea than a Jewish (or biblical) one. Yeshua was responding to a question that nearly all rabbis in the 2nd Temple period had asked to them. The Talmud has a narrative where rabbis respond to that same question. All of them do this in an attempt to show THE summary commandment of the Torah (termed the 'av' in Hebrew). Yeshua taught that Deut. 6.4 and Lev. 19.18b were those 'av' commands: love the One G-d and love your neighbor. He was saying that all of the other commandments depend upon this being done. But he never said that all of these commandment are no longer valid, in vogue, worthwhile, or that they are ended somehow in any 'spiritual' way. It was spiritual to observe them! In fact, look at 5.17-20. Pretty strong words for anyone who teaches that the mitzvot of the Torah are 'passed away'.

Thanks, Lenny:yo:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Richard, my sweet friend, who is throwing around the 'ad hominems' now?
You sound like a person with a real temper there, buddy. You may want to check it at the door.

"Who is throwing around 'ad hominems' now?" I can answer that! YOU ARE! Grow a brain dude ... you are not focusing on my arguments, you are talking about me and your imaginary knowledge about my "temper." That is the definition of "ad hominem." Don't you know anything?


"Nanos has found an "interpretation" of Galatians 4:21-31 that proves "my view" of that passage is invalid. So why don't you just quote Nanos and be done with it?" Not what I said. What I said is that Nanos' analysis of Galatians 4 will show you that there are other interpretations of the text that exist, and that deal with both the Greek text, AND are by people who believe that Galatians is G-d's inspired word. You have to read his full book, "The Irony of Galatians". You reacted to something else he wrote, not to what I suggested. In addition, I'm happy to quote Nanos. I'll take a look at his book this weekend, and share with you his main points next week when I blog. Up for it? It'll be fun.

I already knew that "other interpretations exist" and that they are held by people who claim to believe the Bible is God's inspired word. Their existence has nothing to do with their validity which is what I was challenging. And yes, I am "up" for it when you get around to stating what you think Nanos believes about Galatians 4. But it won't really matter what you say, because I already got the relevant information from the horse's mouth. Here is his interpretation of the "two covenants" in Galatians 4 from the article I cited above:


In v. 24 we meet three very interesting clauses, each worth its own paper. In the first, Paul says he is being allegorical. I will simply work with the idea that Paul is saying or interpreting the elements in the story to signify something else—this stands for that—hence, allegorically. In the next clause, he writes, “these women are two covenants.” Interpreters have generally concluded that the analogy is to the old and new covenants or Judaism and Christianity, and some maintain that it signifies the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, which understanding at least has the mention of Mt. Sinai in the next clause going for it, as well as the story of Abraham, and the prior narrative language of 3:15-22. But why would the specific matter of opposing proselyte conversion for Christ-believing non-Jews result in painting the entire Mosaic covenant with the same negative brush? And does not the Abrahamic covenant also include circumcision of males, both free born sons and slaves, indeed, according to revelation?

Paul analogizes the addressees with Isaac, and those influencing them with Ishmael. I do not think that there are two other covenants in view, but these women are two covenants, allegorically speaking, that is, one representing the birth of free sons, Israelites and those from the nations who join with them through faith in Christ, and the other represents the birth of slave sons, proselytes. In the remaining clauses, Paul says one of the covenants is from Mt. Sinai and it is bearing children for slavery, which he equates with Hagar. Hagar may represent a particular matter linked to the Mosaic covenant; however, remember, it is the Mosaic covenant to which Paul turns to teach the addressees that they should not become proselytes, and he is not putting himself or them in slavery to do so. Rather, I suppose it is the concretizing of proselyte conversion in the traditions of the fathers that Paul seeks to challenge, which Paul allegorically equates with the model for the inclusion of slaves, since it is being applied to exclude the standing of his addressees, when, for Paul, by their receipt of the Spirit their inclusion as children of the free woman like Isaac has been demonstrated as an accomplished fact. They do not need to gain identity as do foreign-born children, they already belong like natural-born ones.

Do you agree with his interpretation of the "two covenants?" Do you agree that they do not refer to any of the "other covenants" (Abrahamic, Mosaic, or New) that are found in the Bible? If so, then what about the context? What was Paul talking about in the previous chapter? I'll tell you what he was talking about:
Galatians 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say,that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor [= under the law]. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Here, Paul is talking about the Promise given Abraham, and the Law which was added through the Mosaic covenant. Do you see those words? ABRAHAM, PROMISE, LAW, COVENANT, HEIRS, SONS, CHILDREN. Those are the same words that Paul used throughout his allegory of the TWO COVENANTS, which he began with the phrase "under the law" parallel to the phrase "under a tutor" he had just used previously:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
Paul is talking about the same issues in both chapters. The "allegory of the two covenants" expands upon the ideas he developed at great length in chapter 3. He uses the same words, and same metaphors (under a tutor = under the law). It's all perfectly and tightly connected. It is a unified exposition. Only the blind could fail to see that Nanos has utterly, totally, and completely ignored the overwhelming contextual meaning of Galatians 4 and its dependence on the previous chapter, not to mention everything else in the other epistles of Paul. Nanos rips the allegory of two covenants out of its context and denies that Paul is talking about the same covenants and promises that he had just expounded upon at great length in the text immediately preceding chapter 4! This is insanity. Utter insanity. His argument is absurd in the extreme. I cannot believe that anyone who has any credibility whatsoever could have missed his obvious errors.

But his ignorance of context is just the beginning of his monumental errors. I can make no sense of his explanation that "the women are two covenants, allegorically speaking, that is, one representing the birth of free sons, Israelites and those from the nations who join with them through faith in Christ, and the other represents the birth of slave sons, proselytes." Taking him at his word, it appears he is saying this:

The Hagar Covenant = "the birth of slave sons, proselytes."

The Sarah Covenant = "the birth of free sons, Israelites and those from the nations who join with them through faith in Christ."

Who are the "proselytes" under the Hagar covenant? It appears Nanos says they are Gentile converts to Judaism who do not believe in Jesus. Why would Paul be concerned about them? Why would Paul write about them and compare them to Christians? It makes no sense at all. It's just plain nuts and it contradicts the plain and obvious meaning of the text that fits perfectly with the context of the rest of the letter. Are you really saying that you agree with Nanos? Come on man, get real.



Now, speaking about dares, I triple dare you to actually read Nanos book!! I'm one upping your double dare. Come on, Richard. I triple dare you to read this book that is outside the box that you're stuck in. (I'm using your boorish language here. Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? But consider yourself triple-dared). And I triple dare you to ask Dr. Friedman who his intended audience is, and if he tells Gentiles that they should keep the commandments of the Torah in the same manner that Jewish people should. Triple dared twice! Yo!

Read Nanos' book? Why bother? He's a fringe scholar and his argument is entirely speculative, logically incoherent, and contradictory to the text. And this is no surprise - the man is not even a believer! He's a reformed Jew. This means, according to Paul, that he has a "veil" over his face and cannot even understand what the Bible is really saying concerning the Gospel. And he's your "go to" guy? Ha! Give me a break! Please consider the weakness of your position! You are basing your interpretation on the speculations of one non-believer who has put forth his own ideas about the meaning of Galatians 4 which he himself admits to be contradictory to the traditional understanding of both Jews and Christians? If he is your best argument, you lost before beginning.

And as for the "box" you falsely claim I'm stuck in - that phrase is really making you look like a moron. I am not stuck in any box, unless the box is called "Reality." You should stick your head in such a box for a change. Though I know you wouldn't like it since it automatically (by definition) excludes your imaginary religion.

And I can already answer about Friedman's intended audience because he already told us, and I quoted him. So unless you are saying that he has changed his opinion from what he wrote in that book, there is no need to question him further.



You haven't answered Yeshua's words in Mt. 5.16-20. What did he say to do with the commandments? Ignore them? Cancel it? Claim they vanished like smoke? Spiritualize it away? Bury them underground? Say that they're no longer valid? Tell me what he said. It's pretty simple. In black and white.

Your pal Lenny
I answered, but you have not answered my answer. Let me repeat: If your interpretation of that passage is correct, then why are you not teaching all Christians that they must obey Torah? Your teaching is logically incoherent.

Answer that, my friend.

Richard

PS: Why do you follow the absurd Jewish superstition that writing "God" would violate the Third Commandment? "God" is not God's "name." The Third Commandment speaks of using his name YHWH in vain. Is that what you would have been doing if you wrote "God" rather than "G-d?" I am pointing this out because it shows how corruption enters into a religion when human tradition is taken too seriously, which I believe is the essential error of "Messianic Judaism."

Rose
07-24-2011, 03:41 PM
Hi Rose. Thanks for responding. I appreciate it, and I appreciate your tone. However, I do not agree with your perspective. Let me tell you why:
"What I hear Jesus saying in Matthew 5 is that he has not come to destroy the law by abolishing it, but rather by "fulfilling the law" where he transforms it from a law of "works" to one of intents of the heart. "--the text states that Yeshua came to 'pleerosai' the commandments of the Torah. This word doesn't mean what you state. It means to 'fill up'. It doesn't mean 'to abolish'. It doesn't mean to 'cancel'. It doesn't mean to 'transform it', as you state. You are stating a very nice, sweet thing, but it's not in the text. That's my problem with what you said. Either way, whether by 'abolishing it' or 'fulfilling it', you read him to be destroying the 'law'. That is not plausible.

Thanks for responding :yo: I'll address the statements I highlighted in Red.

Yes, I agree, Jesus came to "fill up" the law"...where we differ is in what that actually means. What I mean by "transforming the law" is seeing it in a new way...nothing has been changed or destroyed, but rather presented in the way it was intended from the start, which was not the keeping of 613 rules!


The commandments of the Torah never were a 'law of works'. What does that even mean? The Jewish world has never considered the commandments something to be kept legalistically in order to earn one's way into the world to come. Try to find this in modern Jewish thought, or in historical Jewish thought. Very hard! You are dealing with Yeshua's words from a set perspective based on the interpretations of the early church fathers (like Augustine) and with the anti-Semite and heretic, Marcion. They believed something similar to what you're stating. The words of Yeshua are true and right; the words of Shaul, as well. But watch out through which lenses you read their words!

"Jesus goes on to admonish the Pharisee's NOT to break any of the laws, or teach men to break the laws because fulfilling the law is not done by breaking it, but by transforming it to a spiritual level." This is not stated in the text whatsoever. How did you come up with "transforming it to a spiritual level"? What does this even mean?

"Keeping the law wholly, or partially does nothing to elevate one to a place of living in the New Covenant...where the Law has been transformed to loving your neighbor as yourself, upon which hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.
Matt. 22:39-40 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The reason the laws were kept may not have been to gain entrance into heaven, but never the less the laws were kept "legalistically" down to the last "Jot" and "Tittle"...that is why Jesus was accused of breaking the law when he healed on the Sabbath.


What is 'the Law?' Are you referring to Genesis-Deuteronomy? If you are, are you aware that 80% of those books is not legal matter whatsoever. Or are you referring to the 613 commandments in those books, which are termed by Shaul 'good, just and holy?' When Yeshua taught that all the legal matter in the Torah can be summed up by Lev. 19.18b, he was not saying that there was a 'transformation of the Law', as you put it. Where are those words stated by him? What does this even mean? It is ethereal language with no practical meaning. It sounds to me more of a Hellenistic idea than a Jewish (or biblical) one. Yeshua was responding to a question that nearly all rabbis in the 2nd Temple period had asked to them. The Talmud has a narrative where rabbis respond to that same question. All of them do this in an attempt to show THE summary commandment of the Torah (termed the 'av' in Hebrew). Yeshua taught that Deut. 6.4 and Lev. 19.18b were those 'av' commands: love the One G-d and love your neighbor. He was saying that all of the other commandments depend upon this being done. But he never said that all of these commandment are no longer valid, in vogue, worthwhile, or that they are ended somehow in any 'spiritual' way. It was spiritual to observe them! In fact, look at 5.17-20. Pretty strong words for anyone who teaches that the mitzvot of the Torah are 'passed away'.

Thanks, Lenny:yo:

You are right! Jesus never said the commandments were no longer valid, what he did say was that loving God and your neighbor was the container in which all the other commands were held.

We all know the act of keeping the laws did not make people love God or their neighbors, I think that was the point Jesus was making, so doing away with the laws also would not accomplish that...the only thing that can change a persons heart is to see with new eyes, or as I like to say "see from your heart".

All the Best,
Rose

dr_sabra
07-25-2011, 03:28 AM
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'd agree that Yeshua dealt partially with showing how the commandments of the Torah (its legal sections) should be viewed, honored and observed. That's a good insight.

Small sectors of the Jewish world have related to the commandment of the Torah in a 'legalistic' manner. But they have been few and far between, and fringe groups. The question that needs to be asked is what 'legalistic' means. As used in Galatians, it clearly refers to keeping the Torah's legal codes as a way of entering the world to come. This was NOT a Jewish teaching from the 1st century, when Galatians was written. So whose teaching was it? That is the million dollar question. We don't know the answer, but it never did represent the mainstream, majority or large sectors of the 1st century (nor modern) Jewish world. In fact, just last week I read a wonderful homily by the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, in which he wrote that the challenge to those who love G-d today is to respond IN FAITH to his promises, and base our lives ON HIS PROMISES, just like our forefather Abraham did. That represents mainstream Jewish thought throughout history, including today.

LH

dr_sabra
07-25-2011, 03:48 AM
Hey there! Let's look at a few ad hominems (the most recent ones):
1.



"under a tutor = under the law"=I don't think so! This is a Koine Greek idiom for "legalistically following the legal codes." Now think for a minute. That means that one has to be keeping the mitzvot of the Torah for the purpose of gaining entrance into the world to come. ONLY if someone is in that mind frame, do the negative things that Shaul writes about in Galatians apply to them. Otherwise he'd be condemning the entire Jewish world by what he wrote, forever. But he wrote that the "law" (should read 'Torah') is holy, just and good. Remember that verse? And how about Mt. 5.16-20. You still don't touch that one, and again I can't blame you. And he wrote in Acts 28.17 (approx. 60 c.e., just prior to his death by 2 years=at the end of his life), that he never did anything against the customs of the fathers. Koine Greek 'customs'=rabbinic halakah (of his era); 'the fathers'=check out Avot chapter 1, verse 1 of the Talmud, following the thought line for a few verses of the same chapter. Now, according to your interpretation of Galatians, Shaul would be contadicting himself and lying. I can't dig that, bro. He was neither a liar nor did he contradict himself.

"Who are the "proselytes" under the Hagar covenant?"=Let's use some logic here: there's only 1 way to find out. Read his book! (it's cheap enough to afford. Try Amazon.com).

"He's a fringe scholar"--that's what I mean by Pontificating. He's not good enough to be a bishop, huh? Who judges him to be a 'fringe scholar?' Not St. Andrews University, which awarded him a PhD. Not the UMJC, which had him speak to their Messianic rabbis on the subjects that he is an expert in...plus, I would consider this an 'ad hominum' v. Dr. Nanos. Now, if he's not a believer, does that negate his expertise? I can now see why you won't read Flusser, Safrai and Lapide. Afraid of their Jewishness and Jewish scholarship, huh? Actually, if their works challenge you, it would be a good exercise for you, friend. (And this still doesn't explain why you won't pick up Frankovich, Lindsey, Young and Pileggi [respectively a Christian believing scholar; the late Baptist pastor, believer and scholar; a Pentecostal scholar; and the current Anglican bishop of Jerusalem). Why diss Christian believing scholars? Maybe your cohorts have something they could teach you.

Listen, the 1st issue of our entire conversation was my challenge to you, still unanswered. So I'll hold off on answering anything until you respond to that. Here it is again: I triple dare you to ask Dr. Friedman who his intended audience is, and if he teaches that Torah's legal codes are incumbent upon Christians. That's my bottom line for you.

Oh, I also said I'd bring out Nanos' main points for you. I'm happy to do that, as I am a man of my word (can't wait to see what ad hominem you'll throw at that one!) You can expect such after the weekend.

Shalom! Oh, wait...1 other issue. I use the spelling 'G-d' not out of any superstitions. Seems like you've swallowed another anti-Semitic fantasy there. I was taught (by my rabbi=a mainstream one) that we spell G-d as such out of reverence for Him. That is also why I always wear a kippa. It's because G-d is over my head, and He is my covering. See...lots of Jewish customs can be explained rationally if people listen, dispelling the 'superstition straw man'.

Yours sincerely

Lenny

dr_sabra
07-25-2011, 03:59 AM
I forgot three recent ad hominems of yours that are recent. Here they are:
"Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1" =2 days ago
"your malformed mind"= hey, that's a good one!:lol: 2 days ago
"a poster child for the post-modern wasteland"=hey, 1st time I've ever been called that!: 3 days ago
"your imaginary religion"--now that's funny! I guarantee you that it's REAL, nothing imaginary about it, unless you mean something else other than what you state here.:eek: Eek! That's just plain nasty, and a good ad hominem to throw at someone when you feel like you are losing a debate (that must be how you feel, even though I've reassured you that we are in no debate)=3 days ago.

So, Richard, look again and see how you write. That's pretty important IF you are really trying to discuss something with anyone, even with a "Nasty, malformed, poster child".
:winking0071:

Lenny

dr_sabra
07-25-2011, 04:16 AM
An explanation of why G-d is written that way by some Jewish people: "most faiths have some written way of showing respect for the sacred. For example, many Christians capitalize "His" and "Him" when they refer to God or Jesus."

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2003/11/Orthodox-Orthography-Why-No-O-In-G-D.aspx#ixzz1T9YoXERy

Gee, the above sounds less superstitious than wanting to convey respect. Seems as if you don't understand an ancient way that Jewish communities have attempted to convey respect to G-d. And it seems that it's the same desire that prompts Christians to use 'He' and 'Him' in referring to G-d. The respect due to Christians doing that is due to Jewish people doing our culturally defined way to show respect toward G-d.

Secondly, in Hebrew, one of the languages of our sacred texts, G-d's name is often written by the letters 'heh-yod'. This is done for 2 reasons, one of them being to convey respect for G-d. This is why we don't try to call him by His name, the Tetragrammon, like some Christians do. Saying his name wrongly is disrespectful, just like if someone called you 'Rochard' for awhile. After awhile, it would irk you and no doubt you'd correct them, n'est-ce-pas? And if they respected you, they'd make sure not to call you by the wrong name. So 'G-d' is bringing into English the Hebrew writing custom. Nothing is wrong with that. It's incumbent upon people who don't understand the why behind this to ask about it, not assume it is a useless superstition. That's my opinion.:signthankspin:

Lenny

Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 08:52 AM
"under a tutor = under the law"=I don't think so! This is a Koine Greek idiom for "legalistically following the legal codes."

That is absurd. The Scripture explicitly states that the "law" was a "schoolmaster" and says that we were "under the law" and "under the schoolmaster" in the same context:'
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Look at the highlighted words:


under the law
the law was our schoolmaster
under a schoolmaster

Since you refuse to see what Scripture plainly states, let me present the logic abstractly so you won't be blinded by your preconceptions:


Paul says "Under A"

Paul says "A is B"
Paul says "Under B"

Therefore, Paul means the same thing by "Under A" and "Under B." The logic is perfect. Paul is using the idea of "under a schoolmaster" to illustrate the idea of "under the law."

But that's only the beginning of the absurdity of your response. How does "legalistically following legal codes" function as a "tutor" to lead someone to Christ? It doesn't. It is an absurd proposition. You have given no evidence support your assertion.

This is what happens when you try to force the text to fit your idea of "observing Torah." You cannot receive what the text says no matter how plainly it says it if it contradicts your preconceptions.



Now think for a minute. That means that one has to be keeping the mitzvot of the Torah for the purpose of gaining entrance into the world to come. ONLY if someone is in that mind frame, do the negative things that Shaul writes about in Galatians apply to them. Otherwise he'd be condemning the entire Jewish world by what he wrote, forever. But he wrote that the "law" (should read 'Torah') is holy, just and good. Remember that verse? And how about Mt. 5.16-20. You still don't touch that one, and again I can't blame you. And he wrote in Acts 28.17 (approx. 60 c.e., just prior to his death by 2 years=at the end of his life), that he never did anything against the customs of the fathers. Koine Greek 'customs'=rabbinic halakah (of his era); 'the fathers'=check out Avot chapter 1, verse 1 of the Talmud, following the thought line for a few verses of the same chapter. Now, according to your interpretation of Galatians, Shaul would be contadicting himself and lying. I can't dig that, bro. He was neither a liar nor did he contradict himself.

I grant that there are many logic tensions in the interpretation of the Bible. But that does not imply that your solution to those tensions is correct. And indeed, you are avoiding all the real issues. For example, you have said that I "don't touch" Mt. 5.16-20 when in fact I have given a fatal blow to your interpretation as evidenced by the fact that I have repeated my response TWICE and you have ignored it! Talk about failure to "touch" an argument! I have answered you twice, and you have not responded! What is wrong with your brain???



"Who are the "proselytes" under the Hagar covenant?"=Let's use some logic here: there's only 1 way to find out. Read his book! (it's cheap enough to afford. Try Amazon.com).

If he can't write well enough to make it clear in that PDF, and his idea is so far out in left field that you can't simply state it, then I have no reason to think it worth my time to read more of his stuff. He is a fringe scholar, pushing an novel interpretation that contradicts nearly everything in the vast body of literature ever written on this topic. And he's your "go to guy" because your interpretation is also "fringe" in the extreme.



"He's a fringe scholar"--that's what I mean by Pontificating. He's not good enough to be a bishop, huh? Who judges him to be a 'fringe scholar?' Not St. Andrews University, which awarded him a PhD. Not the UMJC, which had him speak to their Messianic rabbis on the subjects that he is an expert in...plus, I would consider this an 'ad hominum' v. Dr. Nanos.

You are ignorant beyond all description! A "fringe scholar" is a scholar specializing in a "fringe" topic which is defined as a topic that "departs significantly from the mainstream view." That's how the wiki defines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories) it:
We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_%28terminology%29) in its particular field. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_study), and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight. For example, fringe theories in science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science) depart significantly from mainstream science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_science) and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) and esoteric claims about medicine.
Don't you understand anything? It doesn't matter if the man has a PhD. His topic is on the "fringe" of the mainstream by definition.



Now, if he's not a believer, does that negate his expertise?

Not in most topics. But if you claim to believe the Bible, then you claim to believe the words of Paul:
2 Corinthians 3:12 Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not as Moses, who used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Nanos defines himself as a "reformed Jew" on his about page. He fits the description of those with a "hardened mind" and "veiled heart" that Paul spoke of in this passage. It is absurd in the extreme for you to claim that you believe in the Bible and then to rely on an UNBELIEVER'S INTERPRETATION to support your novel religion. But you can't see even this because he is one of the few that supports your rejection of the plain and obvious - indeed, the "unveiled" - meaning of the text.



I can now see why you won't read Flusser, Safrai and Lapide. Afraid of their Jewishness and Jewish scholarship, huh?

BULLSHIT! I have never said I won't read those authors. The only author I have declined to read further is Nanos because he is manifestly incoherent and a fringe scholar. You think I'm afraid of their Jewishness? You godless moron! I've got a library full of Jewish authors. I went through a "Jewish" stage before I became Christian. I thought I was probably going to formally convert to Judaism. I had been studying a broad range of spiritual topics, encountered the Kabbalah, fell in love with it, began studying the original Jewish sources, learned Hebrew, and fell in love with Judaism. But I continued my studies and fell in love with Christ and the New Testament before I had time to convert to Judaism.

Now consider the godless bullshit you have spewed at me in this thread. You falsely and ignorantly asserted that I knew no Hebrew. You never admitted error, let alone apologized. You falsely asserted that I am "anti-semitic" when in fact I love Judaism and the Jewish people. Again, you never admitted error or apologized. And now falsely assert that I am "afraid of their Jewishness." I could continue the list, but you get the idea. You are a "loose butt-cannon" that spews lies and shit on people in their own house without any regard for truth, and when called on it, you ignore it and move on as if you had done nothing wrong. And you call yourself a "follower of Yeshua?" I call BULLSHIT on that.



Actually, if their works challenge you, it would be a good exercise for you, friend. (And this still doesn't explain why you won't pick up Frankovich, Lindsey, Young and Pileggi [respectively a Christian believing scholar; the late Baptist pastor, believer and scholar; a Pentecostal scholar; and the current Anglican bishop of Jerusalem). Why diss Christian believing scholars? Maybe your cohorts have something they could teach you.

Again, you make false assertions. I have never said I would not read those other authors. But I currently have over three dozen books on my reading list, and I have no immediate need to read the authors you suggest since you have not even cited anything they actually wrote! You merely cite names and claim that they somehow will support your conclusions which I know is false because your conclusions are logically incoherent. It's the same thing with Nanos - his arguments are so far "out there" that you can't even state what they mean! This proves that his conclusions are far removed from any "common sense" understanding of the text. Simplicity and clarity are two of the primary signs of truth, and they are utterly missing from everything you or Nanos have presented as yet.



Listen, the 1st issue of our entire conversation was my challenge to you, still unanswered. So I'll hold off on answering anything until you respond to that. Here it is again: I triple dare you to ask Dr. Friedman who his intended audience is, and if he teaches that Torah's legal codes are incumbent upon Christians. That's my bottom line for you.

I answered that three times already. I quoted Friedman's own words. And I reminded you I quoted Friedman's own words, and yet you continue to assert that I have not answered? What is wrong with your brain???

And do you realize that you have never stated your interpretation of Mt 5.16-20? You have merely referenced that text as if its meaning were "self-evident." But if it means what I think you think it means, then you would be arguing that all "followers of Yeshua" (Friedman's phrase) should be Torah observant! That means that Christians should be Torah observant. So you and Friedman appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouths. Or to say it explicitly - your arguments are logically incoherent.



Oh, I also said I'd bring out Nanos' main points for you. I'm happy to do that, as I am a man of my word (can't wait to see what ad hominem you'll throw at that one!) You can expect such after the weekend.

There you go again! All you do is throw out accusations rather than dealing with the arguments. You are definitely the "Ad Hominem" poster child.



Shalom! Oh, wait...1 other issue. I use the spelling 'G-d' not out of any superstitions. Seems like you've swallowed another anti-Semitic fantasy there. I was taught (by my rabbi=a mainstream one) that we spell G-d as such out of reverence for Him. That is also why I always wear a kippa. It's because G-d is over my head, and He is my covering. See...lots of Jewish customs can be explained rationally if people listen, dispelling the 'superstition straw man'.

Yours sincerely

Lenny
How does writing "G-d" show any more respect than writing the actual word? Would you be showing me respect if you wrote "R-chard?" Now I grant that many folks may think they are doing it out of "respect" because that's what they've been taught, but still the root of the idea is very superstitious indeed. And it gets ugly fast. I cringe every time I read Elokim for Elohim. His "name" is not "Elokim" and it shows no respect at all to change his name.

Now as for "Jewish superstition" in general: I brought that up because it is a major problem with religions in general and Judaism in particular. If you don't know this, then I have reason to doubt you know anything of Judaism.

Rose
07-25-2011, 09:03 AM
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'd agree that Yeshua dealt partially with showing how the commandments of the Torah (its legal sections) should be viewed, honored and observed. That's a good insight.

Small sectors of the Jewish world have related to the commandment of the Torah in a 'legalistic' manner. But they have been few and far between, and fringe groups. The question that needs to be asked is what 'legalistic' means. As used in Galatians, it clearly refers to keeping the Torah's legal codes as a way of entering the world to come. This was NOT a Jewish teaching from the 1st century, when Galatians was written. So whose teaching was it? That is the million dollar question. We don't know the answer, but it never did represent the mainstream, majority or large sectors of the 1st century (nor modern) Jewish world. In fact, just last week I read a wonderful homily by the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, in which he wrote that the challenge to those who love G-d today is to respond IN FAITH to his promises, and base our lives ON HIS PROMISES, just like our forefather Abraham did. That represents mainstream Jewish thought throughout history, including today.

LH

My question to you would be: What value do you place on believers (Jew or Gentile) in Jesus keeping all or part of the 613 laws? And if you do, which ones should be kept, and for what reason?

All the Best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 09:07 AM
I forgot three recent ad hominems of yours that are recent. Here they are:
"Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1" =2 days ago

You poor deluded fool!

YOU ARE THE MAN who introduced the phrase "Mr. Nasty" when you threw it at me in post #25 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33293&postcount=25). That's why I added it to the illustrious title of "Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1 Sabra" that you have been earning here on my forum.

And as for Romans 2:1 - your post is proof enough that you earned that title, since once again you are doing the very thing you accuse me of!
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
How many times do I need to show you this verse? You are the one who introduced ad hominem into this thread. I saw you for what you are, and knew that if I tossed back what you were spewing, you would blow a gasket and the gunk in your heart would be revealed. And that's what has happened. But you don't care ... you continue looking for new ways to attack me because you cannot attack my arguments. Truly pathetic.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 09:52 AM
My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul." Well, you better talk to him about it, pal. It is he who remained a Pharisee, and there ain't no Pharisee I'm aware of who had the name Paulos.

You've never once heard of a Pharisee named Paul? My oh my ... that's quite revealing in light of the fact that the Bible twice refers to Paul as a Pharisee:

Philippians 3:4 Though I [Paul] 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

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Is there anything in the Bible that you don't reject?

dr_sabra
07-25-2011, 02:25 PM
Wow, Richard, you are having a temper tantrum par excellence here, using words that I have never heard used by one who claims to be a believer in Yeshua. Again, you might want to check your temper at the door.

And again, you blast away with your ad hominems a whole lot more than I have in the past 3 or 4 postings I've made. Check it out. You are the one calling other's names. Yet you complain about it. I guess what's good for the proverbial goose isn't good for the gander, huh? Let's highlight a few from today: 'deluded fool' :yo:, "You are ignorant beyond all description!"--again, the 1st time in my 65 years that anyone has ever said that to me. So at least you're original! :yo:

"That is absurd"--it absolutely isn't. Ever studied Greek, Richard? Tell me all about it.

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." =in terms of being justified. That is the issue that he is addressing: how is one justified. Yet his point here does not attempt to nullify the legal codes of the Torah, or Shaul contradicts the scriptures of the Torah, which he never did.

"...the idea of "under the law."=I can see how you would think this way if you don't know what Shaul is referring to here. You can certainly think he's referring to this if you want to. But it's not what the original Greek idiom means. Would you like to go into the Greek on that one? Just let me know.

"pushing an novel interpretation that contradicts nearly everything in the vast body of literature ever written on this topic."=not really. He references, discusses and quotes a lot of quality Christian (and Jewish) scholarship in his book (e.g., Lightfoot, R. Longenecker, Saldarini, Neusner, Stuhlmacher, Witherington, Hengel, Ellis) . But then you wouldn't know that, would you? So instead you say something that seems right to you without checking the facts. Again...hey, Richard...pick up his book & read it so you actually know what you're talking about.:signthankspin:

"for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."--again, we are talking about the revelation of the identity of who Messiah is. However, it is also apparent that when my Jewish people see that day (cf. Zech. 12.10ff, 14.4ff), that the Christian world will learn a LOT from the Jewish people about honoring G-d, respecting G-d, serving alongside Israel, and much more. Thus, Dr. Nanos, basically being called a worthless scholar by you, actually has much worth to you and to the entire Christian world. Why? The christian world, often too arrogant vis a vis the Jewish people due to what I'll call theological arrogance (cf. Romans 11, plus the historical example and writings of Augustine, Marcion, Chrysostom & Luther, among others), would actually do well to see the many humble, G-d loving Jewish people who I, for one, know. this isn't touching on the doctrine of entrance into the world to come; it is touching on arrogance and humility, two aspects of historical Christianity that has driven a wedge between the Jewish world and our own Messiah.

You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.

"What is wrong with your brain???" Let's see...I had an MRI done when I turned 65, and they assured me that my brain function is totally normal. No tumors, no abnormalities. So you young whippersnapper (I trust you're younger than me), I'll match mine with yours anytime.:yo:

'It is absurd in the extreme for you to claim that you believe in the Bible and then to rely on an UNBELIEVER'S INTERPRETATION to support your novel religion.' Ready for the actual truth instead of again your surmising? Here goes, I hope you can follow this...in my conversations with Dr. Nanos, he and I don't believe the same thing on a good number of issues. But I can still respect his scholarship, and I do. I believe his research helps me to dunderstand the Bible. Doesn't matter if he's a believer or not on that score. I listen to the Jewish rabbi Gabriel Barkai explain to me the archaeological background of the Exodus. Because Barkai, a scholar, is a Conservative rabbi, I guess I should throw his works out the window. Can't trust him, huh?

Richard, I know you can't imagine that lumping such people into your theological boxes follows NOT PAUL, but Marcion. And since so many Jewish people get whipped into your iron-cast theological boxes (me, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nanos are but three; I think you basically whipped the entire Messianic Jewish community worldwide there, too, so add another 35,000 or so people), these boxes by appearance (and I'd guess by definition) border on anti-Semitism. Dig it (like we used to say in the early 60s)! The late Rev. Franklin Littell writes about such things in his many works--I'd recommend that you read them, but I'm sure you have an excuse not to...no problem.:p
Bye for now. Lenny

Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 03:36 PM
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." =in terms of being justified. That is the issue that he is addressing: how is one justified. Yet his point here does not attempt to nullify the legal codes of the Torah, or Shaul contradicts the scriptures of the Torah, which he never did.

You totally missed my point. You had asserted that "under the law" meant "legalistically following the legal codes." So I asked "How does 'legalistically following legal codes' function as a 'tutor' to lead someone to Christ?" You have not answered.

Why can't you respond with simplicity and clarity? I quoted your exact words and showed your error but you do not respond to what I wrote. This is very strange.



"...the idea of "under the law."=I can see how you would think this way if you don't know what Shaul is referring to here. You can certainly think he's referring to this if you want to. But it's not what the original Greek idiom means. Would you like to go into the Greek on that one? Just let me know.

You have never presented any logic or facts to support your assertion about the "original Greek idiom." And neither did you refute the explanation I gave. You are just writing like a child, saying "Is so! Is not!" without providing any evidence or logic. And worse, the fact that you are wrong about the meaning of "under the law" is trivial to demonstrate. Just look at how Paul used it:
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
So Jesus was "made of a woman, made legalistically following the legal codes" so he could "redeem them that were legalistically following the legal codes? Brilliant. And "whatsoever the Torah says, it says to those who are "legalistically following the legal codes?"
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are legalistically following the legal codes: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Your interpretation is simply NUTS. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is no wonder that you have merely repeated what you were told and have not even attempted to give any support to such an absurd claim.



Thus, Dr. Nanos, basically being called a worthless scholar by you, actually has much worth to you and to the entire Christian world. Why? The christian world, often too arrogant vis a vis the Jewish people due to what I'll call theological arrogance
This has nothing to do with "arrogance." It is simple logic and facts. Nanos' interpretation of the "two covenants" is fringe at best. I believe it is just plain nuts, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that you can't even explain it yourself though you claim to "believe" it and it's the only hope you have to rescue your little religion from the junk pile. Likewise, your interpretation of "under the law" is equally absurd, and you can't support it either. All you do is make claims without any evidence, logic, or facts to back them up. And then you simply ignore the evidence I present no matter how plainly I present it. You have chosen a path that has absolutely nothing to do with truth or reality.



You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.

So now you call me liar? That coheres perfectly with the "character" you have demonstrated on this forum. It's no different than when you falsely asserted I knew no Hebrew, and then failed to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, your error. And you call yourself a follower of Yeshua? Again, I say BULLSHIT! You lie all day and never admit it even when corrected. You are no follow of Yeshua, you have made that perfectly clear.



'It is absurd in the extreme for you to claim that you believe in the Bible and then to rely on an UNBELIEVER'S INTERPRETATION to support your novel religion.' Ready for the actual truth instead of again your surmising? Here goes, I hope you can follow this...in my conversations with Dr. Nanos, he and I don't believe the same thing on a good number of issues. But I can still respect his scholarship, and I do. I believe his research helps me to dunderstand the Bible. Doesn't matter if he's a believer or not on that score. I listen to the Jewish rabbi Gabriel Barkai explain to me the archaeological background of the Exodus. Because Barkai, a scholar, is a Conservative rabbi, I guess I should throw his works out the window. Can't trust him, huh?

Helped you understand the Bible? Yeah, I can see how well you "understand" the Bible. Why then can't you simply state what Nanos supposedly taught you? I'll tell you why ... because it doesn't make any sense any more than your your crazy assertion that "under the law" is a "Greek idiom for legalistically following legal codes." That's not how Paul used that phrase in the Bible. Anyone who can read can see that for himself. Jesus was made "legalistically following the legal codes" so he could redeem those who were ""legalistically following the legal codes?" Give me a break! And give yourself one too while you are at it by abandoning the absurd interpretations required to support your recently invented religion.



Richard, I know you can't imagine that lumping such people into your theological boxes follows NOT PAUL, but Marcion. And since so many Jewish people get whipped into your iron-cast theological boxes (me, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nanos are but three; I think you basically whipped the entire Messianic Jewish community worldwide there, too, so add another 35,000 or so people), these boxes by appearance (and I'd guess by definition) border on anti-Semitism. Dig it (like we used to say in the early 60s)! The late Rev. Franklin Littell writes about such things in his many works--I'd recommend that you read them, but I'm sure you have an excuse not to...no problem.:p
Bye for now. Lenny
There you go again. Mindlessly throwing out meaningless canned insults - anti-semite, Marcion, blah blah blah. And you imagine your arrogant little self is justified to spew lying shit on people like that? I have written nothing to justify any accusation of anti-Semite, and nothing I have written is related to Marcion in any way at all. He threw out the enter OT and most of the NT because it contradicted his novel religion. You are more like him than I since you have rejected the plain and obvious meaning of the text in favor of your novel religion. It is patently obvious that you are flipping out because you are incapable of answering my arguments. Just look at the number of points I have made that you have not touched, let alone refuted! Don't you realize that this record is permanent? The fact that you began by spewing ad hominems is recorded forever. And your chosen responses to my arguments (lies, ad hominem, dodges, appeals to authority, and a dozen other logical fallacies) are recorded forever. The fact that I use strong language and call a spade a spade is not the same as making up lying insults like "anti-Semite." Go think about that for a while.

dr_sabra
07-27-2011, 06:56 AM
your nasty name calling & temper flares continue, nevertheless...i will give a more detailed response after the weekend. am busy enjoying the sunshine.
lenny, whose whole family wrote me off after i confessed faith in yeshua as my messiah. but i guess i was wrong, huh?[judge + jury once again]:)

Richard Amiel McGough
07-27-2011, 07:20 PM
your nasty name calling & temper flares continue, nevertheless...i will give a more detailed response after the weekend. am busy enjoying the sunshine.
lenny, whose whole family wrote me off after i confessed faith in yeshua as my messiah. but i guess i was wrong, huh?[judge + jury once again]:)
You've got to be joking! I've never seen anyone as unaware of his behavior as you seem to be. When I explained to you my personal history of moving from a general interest in spirituality, to pop Kabbalah, to serious Judaic kabbalah, to Judaism with the idea that I might convert, and then to Christianity, you set your self up as judge + jury and wrote this dismissive little piece of godless bullshit:
You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.
You set yourself up as "judge + jury" dozens of times in this thread. You began with your absurd assertion that I don't know Hebrew. And now you accuse me of setting myself up as "judge + jury" and doing what you did? Man! You have ZERO self-awareness. You are the Romans 2:1 poster child if ever there were one. I've never seen anyone as ignorant of their own behavior as you. Don't bother writing any more. Any attempt to communicate with you is obviously pointless. You write like a brain-dead robot.

dr_sabra
07-28-2011, 03:00 AM
The overall Galatians perspective, part 1

Now I have some time, after enjoying the Israeli sunshine for awhile, to write re: Galatians. The Jewish scholar Peter Sigal noted: ‘'much of modern scholarship inaccurately portrayed both 1st century Judaism and the relationship of Judaism to Christianity. This error is largely rooted in a misunderstanding of both Paul’s and Judaism’s position on faith and works…(the) simplistic conception of Judaism as ‘legalism’.' That is what is so striking about your analyses. You seem to view the entire Jewish world through Shaul’s words in Galatians, when he meant those words for a very specific group of people who may or may not have even been Jewish. Nanos makes it clear in his historical analysis that we are not certain on the ethnic background of Shaul’s intended audience. That is why you see Galatians as doing some negation of keeping the Torah (whatever ‘keeping the Torah’ is defined as; you never really defined what you meant by this). And if you’ve ever studied epistemology, you’ll know that familiarization with the background of all parties involved in a communication is crucial to understanding the contents of the communication. It is here where I find your analysis lacking. You stereotype Judaism of the 1st century in a way that is inaccurate to its historical reality. You interpret Shaul to be addressing that same stereotypical belief. I can see the logic of your thoughts re: Galatians IF you believe that stereotype. But knowing that Shaul remained a Torah observant Pharisee till his death, if your interpretation of Galatians re: Torah is to be accurate, then Shaul lied about how he lived, or you are wrong. I can’t cut it any other way.

Let’s examine your stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world. You said you ‘almost converted’ to Judaism. Then you should be familiar with the Tachanun prayer and with the exposition of Rav Salmai from Makkot 23-24 re: what G-d requires from mankind. The language of both texts is replete with references to G-d’s grace, and with faith and trust being the active factors in entrance into the world to come. These prayers/recitations, performed by Jews for nearly two millennia, were put into the Siddur to emphasize their theological points. The Jewish world of Shaul’s time had mainstream belief in entrance to the coming world through faith in G-d, not by one’s successful completion of keeping the entire 'taryag' of the mitzvot. If Shaul is interpreted to be saying that, then he is either interpreted wrongly, OR is addressing a real fringe group within the Jewish world. That is Nanos’ contention, and I do believe Dr. Friedman has written extensively on that viewpoint, and is also my perspective.

The Jewish world did have beliefs (not homogenous ones) re: the Messiah, with a strong stream of belief in vicarious atonement (cf. Sanhedrin 98b and the discussion of the ‘leper Messiah’ from Isaiah 53). That is why so many Jewish people became believers in Yeshua in the 1st century (according to Dr. John Fischer and Dr. Friedman, possibly half of Jerusalem were Messianic Jews. Cf. Friedman’s book on that issue, he makes a pretty point). When Yakov, the 1st Chief rabbi of the Messianic Jewish community in Jerusalem, was murdered, Josephus informs us that Torah-loving Jews complained about his death, which resulted in the removal of the high priest for his alleged complicity in it. Messianic Jews in Israel should receive the respect and love of all Gentile church members throughout all of history for their courage, and boldness in spreading the belief in the Jewish Messiah to the pagan world. Sadly that hasn't been the case, has it?

Anyhow, let’s delve further into the stereotype I mention. Jewish scholar H.J. Schoeps noted (and BTW, he’s favorable toward Christianity in his writings): '…all Christian polemic, especially modern Protestant polemic against ‘the law’, misconstrues the law of the Jews as a means of attaining justification in the sight of G-d.'

It is the consensus of the Jewish scholarly world (and again, Christian historians and scholars will agree with us, e.g. B. Young, D. Bivin, J. Frankovic, Anglican bishop D. Pileggi, all Christian scholars who live in Israel, actively writing and teaching, among them), that 1st century Judaism wasn’t as it is so often stereotyped to be=[not homogenous, not into ‘salvation by works’, etc.]. Yet this is the conclusion held by a number of expositors of Galatians that I’ve read. (In fact, where did the entire idea of faith in One G-d originate?) (in the Jewish world itself, within the treasures of the Torah!)

Dr. Fischer has done his analysis of Galatians which states; 'The book has nothing to do with Jewish believers not observing Torah & tradition; the implication of the council decision is that they will follow their heritage and customs' (take a gander at Acts 15.16ff). I’m happy to discuss Acts 21 with you, which offers us clear proof that in the 1st century, 30 years after Yeshua’s death, his followers kept the mitzvot. In fact, Dr. Friedman discusses this fact in his first book. And that brings me back to my point that you egregiously miss: Dr. Friedman agrees with Dr. Fischer, and is NOT calling on Christians to do this same thing. But unless you actually speak with Dr. Friedman, you’ll never know the truth, as you’ve not assessed his position correctly. Don't know what type of fear holds you back from asking him what he meant (??) Seems like your excuses are just that. Anyhow, I’ll refrain from any more comments on that. My position as Dr. Friedman’s student on that issue is clear.

So here’s what I’m saying: the overall message of Galatians can’t be made to contradict the historical record of the book of Acts, or that of how the earliest Jewish believers in Yeshua lived (obedient to their forefather’s covenants). So what is it that Shaul is opposing in Galatians, if not the Jewish world’s theological error of ‘salvation through earning it’, to put it in the aforementioned stereotypic phraseology? To quote Dr. Fischer: 'It is not Torah observance or adherence to the Jewish traditions, but legalism and perhaps its teaching in a specific form.' (This is why the historical background of Galatians’ recipients, lacking to us historically, should preclude anyone from jumping on an anti-Torah, anti-Jewish emphasis to this book. Neither exists. Anti-legalism does, and its abounds!
Chapter 2, vv.3-5: Shaul frames the teaching of the legalists as bringing the Galatian area believers into the bondage of legalism. Shaul is informing us of the belief system of these particular false teachers, not of the extant Jewish world, nor that of the content of the Torah! 2.19 is often cited to argue v. the content of the Torah, with the Torah coming out as the legalistic bondage-giver. A horrendous, anti-Semitic misconception, since this has been played upon in Jewish history to lead to the shedding of Jewish blood, or more recently, simple overall apathy by the Church as 6 million of my people were butchered. This development alone is enough for many Jewish people never to consider the Messianic claims of Yeshua. The rampant dislike of anything Jewish in the history of the Church started with a theological divorce, based upon wrong interpretations of Shaul’s works. Never think that a theological one-upmanship wasn’t active in contributing to the church’s complicity in the Holocaust. Just read Chrysostom, Augustine and later Luther, and this is well-seen. This theological ‘one-upmanship’ (and worse in the cases of Marcion & Luther) is contributed to in part by misinterpreting the writings of Shaul, and viewing them to be anti-Torah polemic. And I stand by my words here (I was born in Germany; I know about this situation all too painfully well).
Now, in v. 19, is Shaul saying that he ‘died to the Torah’? (If so, it’s the 1st usage of that term in Jewish religious writings in history; possibly the only one with that meaning to it!) If the Torah reflects G-d’s instructions to men (and that is the proper definition of what the Torah is—do you know enough Hebrew to know that the word comes from the ancient root ‘to shoot at a target’, and ‘to instruct’? Well, there you go…80% of the content of the books of Genesis-Deut. is historical narrative, not legal content, as A. Berkowitz bring out in his classic, ‘Torah Rediscovered’. So is Torah ‘law’? Only if Olympia is the only city in Washington state, Richard.

My view: Shaul teaches here of death to the condemnation that a legalistic approach to the Torah brings (cf. 3.10-11). Perhaps he speaks here of a death to legalism itself as a valid system of thought. Legalism [‘do it this way to earn your way into the world to come’] pronounces the death sentence…not the Torah. The Torah is not death, or Joshua’s words (Joshua 1.1-8), would contradict Shaul’s--or G-d changed His mind about the nature of the Torah, even though it is written, ‘I am the L-rd, I change not…’). The hold of legalism (Shaul is using his name not as the personal ‘victim’ here, but as an example of a person, as we often do in modern Hebrew (or English) today. So the hold of legalism producing death on people is broken (cf. Rom. 7.1ff=the same point is driven home). It is Yeshua who removed that death (3.13-14). Any anti-Torah way of interpreting this is simply inaccurate to history, and is a foundation for Christian anti-Semitism.

Lenny

(to be continued, tomorrow).

Richard Amiel McGough
07-29-2011, 08:16 AM
Good morning Lenny! :yo:

Thank you for your reasoned response!

:signthankspin:

Your many words helped me understand where you are coming from, but too many words can obscure the central issues. So I will try to keep my responses brief, though it won't be easy because you brought up so many points all at once. In the future, it would be best if we could choose one point to discuss at a time to keep the posts manageable.

1) You wrote: "Let’s examine your stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world."

How do you anything about my view of "the first century Jewish world?" How do you know it is a "stereotype?" Have I written anything about it in this thread? Have you read anything I've written on that topic elsewhere? Or are you making an entirely unfounded assumption without any evidence at all? If you want to make an assertion about something I believe, it is very important that you make a proper citation and/or quotation of what I have actually stated just like I am doing now with your post. Otherwise, it is likely that you will fall into the error of making false assumptions and your comments will be irrelevant at best, and probably even erroneous.

2) You wrote that many people misconstrue "the law of the Jews as a means of attaining justification in the sight of G-d.”

That seems to be a very odd assertion for a variety of reasons. First, there are many passages in the Bible that directly assert that justification in the sight of God is achieved by obeying commandments. I'm sure you know them or can look them up, so there is no need to list them here. But there also are verses like Gen 15:6 and Hosea 2:4 that speak of being justified by faith, and we all know that these verses have caused a perennial hermeneutical tension between the ideas of justification by works vs. faith. This is not something that comes from bad translations, heretics like Marcion, or other anti-Semitic Christians. On the contrary, it comes straight from Scripture. Indeed, it is a central issue of the entire Gospel as preached in nearly every book of the New Testament. Let us begin with the teachings of the profoundly devout Jew Yakov (aka James) who spoke of "observing the Torah" this way:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Obviously, the word "law" in this verse is referring to Torah since he cited the Ten Commandments. It is inconceivable that any first century Jew would disagree with James on this point. We see therefore that the first century Jews had a problem. The Torah was not merely an "instruction" from God. It contained laws, and death was explicitly demanded for violation of many of those laws, even for things as seemingly trivial as "picking up sticks on the sabbath." So the way that you expressed the issue seems backwards. The problem was not that Jews thought they could gain "entrance to the coming world" through law as opposed to faith, but rather that the law imposed penalties on those who failed to keep it completely, and so all were under the penalty of death because of sin. This is the Gospel preached throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul explained how the "law" itself contained a "sting" that would kill anyone who failed to obey it, and that this included everyone:
1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
What is this victory of which he spoke? Paul expanded on the relation between the law, sin, and death:
Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What is sin? The Apostle John explains:
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Here we see James, Paul, and John all speaking of the central message of the Gospel - the law brings knowledge of sin, and sin brings death, and faith in Christ is the solution to this problem:
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 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. 21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Note the phrase "under the law." You have repeatedly asserted that this is a "Greek idiom" that means "legalistically following legal codes." Unfortunately, you have never supported that assertion with any evidence, logic, or Scripture despite repeated requests from me. It seems obvious to me that it is a false assertion and does not fit in any way with the way that Paul used it.

Bottom line: Your assertions concerning first century Jewish belief are based on the work of some modern scholars, not on what the Bible actually teaches. There is not a trace of "legalism" in Paul's use of the phrase "under the law." On the contrary, he is explaining how the Gospel of Christ solves the problem of sin, and how sin relates to the law. This is what the Bible teaches, and it appears to be entirely contrary to your teachings. Indeed, I have not heard anything from you that sounds anything like the Gospel that Paul preached. What do you think the Gospel is? How does it relate to Torah? Why did Paul contrast works with faith?

There is much more that I could say about other issues you brought up, but I think it is better to focus on the issues I have discussed above.

All the best, and thanks again for a reasoned response.

Richard

dr_sabra
08-02-2011, 07:53 AM
Just sharing my thoughts about your last post:

The legal part (in fact, all) of the Torah from Sinai was given to Israel after the tribes had been redeemed by G-d. A redeemed people received the Torah, including its legal codices. The Torah didn’t redeem them. G-d had already freed the people out of slavery from Egypt. The legal codes of the Torah weren't given to redeem them, and they certainly understood that. So I’m left to wonder who you think Shaul was writing about in Galatians, who held a belief that the legal codes of the Torah could garner eternal life for them? All of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva? Diaspora Jews? Everyone who was Jewish? Pharisees? Sadducees? Essenes? There is no Jewish group that is historically known to us that interpreted the legal codes of the Torah in the way you construe them to fit into Galatians. And that’s my point: you can try to find such a group of people, but won't, outside of 1 possibility: a small, fringe group of teachers who may or may not have been Jewish at all; who did NOT understand the purpose of the Torah at all! They mixed a wrong understanding of the Torah alongside their belief in Yeshua, and began to try and convince people to earn their eternal life through a legalistic approach to the legal codes. Try to find another group that could have fit that bill, Richard, and then quote their writings. Well, no one can. No ancient Jewish sources confirm that the Jewish people as a whole saw the Torah’s legal codes as a means to attaining eternal life in the late 2nd Temple Period. None. In fact, I can find texts from then that talk about how Torah demands a faith response. It always has! Oh,,as Deuteronomy & Joshua note, the Torah does give life [=the Jewish understanding is that when the word ‘Torah’ is mentioned, G-d is implied, as He is the author of Torah; so it’s really G-d who gives life, or doesn’t, not words on a parchment], because if the nation didn’t follow Torah, the entire people would be exiled (this happened). If the people committed murder, adultery and robbery, then life would be taken away. Their human lives were greatly affected by their keeping of or ignoring of, the Torah and its legal codes. But it was not a step-ladder by which to attain eternal life.

The understanding of my forefathers in the passage of history is an important factor in how to interpret scripture. It must be interpreted in its historical context, or we end up making interpretations that seem logical, but aren’t true. I.e., 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth…'=seems like it is in simple black & white, only needs a peshat interpretation to be understood. Thus, in a literal rendition, if I poke out the eye of my neighbor (my intention or lack of it is not even mentioned here), I am liable to having my eye poked out as a judicial response. But this has never been carried out in this manner, nor interpreted this way in Jewish history. In fact, I’ve never seen 1 documented case of this occurring at anytime in Jewish history. Why not? Even in the very beginning of the 2nd century, it was recognized by Rabbi Ishmael (who loved the peshat meaning of the text) that this is not the meaning, and never had been. 'Really?' he wrote, in reply to a simple literal understanding of this verse. Without knowing how the rabbis even from ancient times read and interpreted this text, we’d be gouging out each other’s eyes (a la sometime Muslim jurisprudence). So context and the history of interpretation by those who came before us does have some value.

Let’s re-phrase your question…’what is the ‘good news’?’ It is that Israel’s Messiah, Yeshua, gave himself as an "asham" offering and as a "Pesach" offering in order to provide eternal life for anyone who believes in him (Jn 3.16, 1 Cor. 5.7). Isaiah 53 calls the Messiah an ‘asham’ offering (in 2 different places). I trust you understand what that is. He also opened up the way for Gentiles to believe and serve the One True G-d of Israel, without the requirement of conversion (Acts 15). As the designated King of Israel, Yeshua will return to rule the nations, and function as the king of his people. His people will then be restored to fulfilling our G-d given role (Ex. 19.5-6, Deut. 4.4-8), concurrently as Messiah is honored in Israel by all nations (Zech. 14.16ff, Isaiah 19.24ff). That’s it in a nutshell. There are many more implications of belief in the Jewish Messiah, such as one’s relationship to the Jewish people, which goes hand in hand with the good news (cf. Romans 9-11). If joining Israel and loving Israel, doesn’t go hand in hand with the good news, then whoever believes is being robbed of what it means to be associated or partnered with the root of the olive tree (to quote Shaul in Romans 11: 'sugkoinwno\ß').

No, I don’t see the legal codes of the Torah as contradictory to the good news. (unless those codes are kept in such a way as to attempt to earn one’s eternal life. Then I would see people misusing them. I still maintain that this is what Shaul addresses in Galatians). Did G-d give us something that Shaul wrote was ‘holy, just and good’ (Romans), only to tell us that it’s not really for us, since we can’t observe it anyway! So just chuck it because Yeshua did away with it. I sure don't read this in Mt. 5.17ff. Whoops! Just a temporary fixture, even though it is written that the Torah is ‘perfect, restoring life’ ['torat Adonay temimah, ad shiv’at nefesh'],(Ps. 19). Did G-d change His mind? (cf. Malachi 3.6). If you interpret Shaul the way you do in Galatians, the answer is ‘yes’.

James 2:8 ¶ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right.
James 2:9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. =v. 10 is used as a proof of v. 9’s argument. He buttresses his point, which is that showing 'maso’ panim' transgresses Torah. It may be thought of as such a minor ‘crime’, that it is ignored (as it apparently was ignored with the people whom Yakov served as Chief Rabbi). However, he parallels it to other (more serious) Torah crimes. That is how he uses v. 11. This is not an antinomian diatribe, which does not fit the context of the argument, nor the point being made.
James 2:11 For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
James 2:12 ¶ Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,=which ‘law’ is that? A contrary one to Torah? Or is it found IN Torah?(=keep Leviticus 19.18b, the 'Royal Law'. Yeshua has empowered us by his Spirit to keep that mitzvah…so Yakov’s congregants could carry this out). That is his point here.

Nearly all Messianic Jews see Yeshua as a ‘renewer’ of the previous covenants, not a replacer of them. This also goes along with Galatians 3.17. Shaul cannot be interpreted as saying that Yeshua replaced the previous covenants. In fact, this would contradict his very words in 3.17! The covenant in Messiah’s blood is indeed a better and stronger one than any previous one (cf. Hebrews), but not a replacement. It is a continuation and a renewer of the very promises given in the previous covenants. Much confusion reigns re: how to interpret the word ‘new’ as used in both the Torah and the Newer Testament writings. In Jewish thought, ‘hadash’ does not just mean ‘new’. It certainly can. It is also the same word for ‘renewed’ (Dr. John Fischer of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary has done an excellent piece on this subject). The moon, for example…even in English it is called a ‘new’ moon every month. But is it a ‘new’ moon, or is the cycle of the moon’s appearance ‘renewed’? The latter, of course. Same moon. The word ‘hadash’ has the same connotations, and since Jews (and probably one G-d fearer=sebamenos=Luke) wrote all of the Newer Testament writings, one needs to be very careful not to make ‘hadash’ or its Greek equivalent say ‘new’ when it doesn’t mean that, but ‘renewed.’ The same care needs to be taken with this word as is used when translating the word ‘logos’ from Greek: it has multiple meanings according to its contextual use. Some people use it to mean ‘law’ every time it appears, which is clearly not the case.

Another point: how is it that you nearly became Jewish through studying kabbalah? This is an unacceptable way to bring someone to conversion. Whoever was working with you violated Jewish custom, which is NEVER to begin an exposure to Judaism by studying kabbalah. Dr. Friedman wrote an excellent article about that very custom for an evangelical magazine once, as they asked his opinion on Madonna’s flirtation with kabbalah.

If this was the major exposure that you had to Judaism, you may have missed large portion of what Judaism actually teaches, and has taught throughout out history. If you garner your info on what Judaism is by what I’d consider an incomplete (and inaccurate) analysis =(only through your interpretation of the Newer Testament writings), then I feel sorry that this has been your exposure. No knock on you, but I don’t know what you were exposed to. Now understand that I’m not trying to make you into a Jew. No need to, according to the pattern of Acts 15. (And BTW, Dr. Friedman tows this same line). But every believer owes it to themselves to understand the world that birthed Messiah, as well as to understand and embrace your connection through Messiah to his flesh and blood brothers, the Jewish people.

Lenny

Brother Les
08-08-2011, 10:11 AM
My question to you would be: What value do you place on believers (Jew or Gentile) in Jesus keeping all or part of the 613 laws? And if you do, which ones should be kept, and for what reason?

All the Best,
Rose


Could someone tell me where these 613 laws are spelled out?


dr_sabra, where would you locate these laws?

Richard Amiel McGough
08-08-2011, 11:23 AM
Could someone tell me where these 613 laws are spelled out?


dr_sabra, where would you locate these laws?
There are no first century documents that mention the 613 commandments, and there are no known lists prior to the eleventh century. Lenny's assertion in Post #58 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33610&postcount=58) that "[t]he Jewish world of Shaul’s time had mainstream belief in entrance to the coming world through faith in G-d, not by one’s successful completion of keeping the entire “taryag” of the mitzvot" is therefore totally anachronistic and has nothing to do with genuine first century Judaism. I find this utterly ironic, since his primary criticism has been my supposedly erroneous "stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world." I am amazed at how he speaks with such arrogant certainty while making such sophomoric errors.

Furthermore, the idea that there are exactly "613" (the gematria of "taryag") commandments in the Torah is not based on any valid, or even logical, exegesis of the text of the Torah. It is nothing but a tradition supposedly based on the gematria of the word "Torah" (611) + 2 (for no good reason that I have ever seen). Personally, I think the real reason was that the gematria of BTWRH (IN THE TORAH) = 613. Obviously, the various "lists" were invented long after the number 613 was proposed. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot) gives a good overview of the logical problems with the doctrine that there are exactly 613 commandments in the Torah:




The rabbinic support for 613 is not without dissent and, even as the number gained acceptance, difficulties arose in elucidating the list. Some rabbis declared that this count was not an authentic tradition, or that it was not logically possible to come up with a systematic count. Not surprisingly, no early work of Jewish Law or Biblical commentary depended on the 613 system, and no early systems of Jewish principles of faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith) made acceptance of this Aggadah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah) (non-legal Talmudic statement) normative. The classical Biblical commentator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meforshim) and grammarian Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ibn_Ezra) denied that this was an authentic rabbinic tradition. Ibn Ezra writes "Some sages enumerate 613 mitzvot in many diverse ways [...] but in truth there is no end to the number of mitzvot [...] and if we were to count only the root principles [...] the number of mitzvot would not reach 613" (Yesod Mora, Chapter 2).

Nahmanides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides) held that this counting was the matter of a rabbinic controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy), and that rabbinic opinion on this is not unanimous. Nonetheless, he concedes that "this total has proliferated throughout the aggadic literature... we ought to say that it was a tradition from Moses at Mount Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai)," (Nahmanides, Commentary to Maimonides' Sefer Hamitzvot'', Root Principle 1).

Rabbi Simeon ben Zemah Duran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Zemah_Duran) likewise rejected the legal relevance of the 613, saying that "perhaps the agreement that the number of mitzvot is 613... is just Rabbi Simlai's opinion, following his own explication of the mitzvot. And we need not rely on his explication when we come to determine the law, but rather on the Talmudic discussions" (Zohar Harakia, Lviv, 1858, p. 99).

Even when rabbis attempted to compile a list of the 613 commandments, they faced a number of difficulties:


Which statements were to be counted as commandments? Every command by God to any individual? Only commandments to the entire people of Israel?
Would an order from God be counted as a commandment, for the purposes of such a list, if it could only be complied with in one place and time? Or, would such an order only count as a commandment if it could - at least in theory - be followed at all times? (The latter is the view of Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides).)
How does one count commandments in a single verse which offers multiple prohibitions? Should each prohibition count as a single commandment, or does the entire set count as one commandment?

Ultimately, though, the concept of 613 commandments became accepted as normative in the Jewish community. Today, even among those who do not literally accept this count as accurate, it is still a common practice to refer to the total system of commandments within the Torah as the "613 commandments."

However, the 613 Mitzvot do not constitute a formal code of present-day halakhah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakhah). (See Halakha: Codes of Jewish law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha#Codes_of_Jewish_law).) The most widely recognized is the Shulkhan Arukh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulkhan_Arukh), written by Rabbi Yosef Karo (Safed, Israel, 1550) and adopted to Ashkenazic custom by Rabbi Moses Isserles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Isserles). For Sephardic Jewry, this is generally the accepted code. The Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzur_Shulkhan_Arukh) of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Ganzfried) (Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) 1804 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804) -1886) is an especially popular among Ashkenazic Jews—though often criticized—overview of the rules of Ashkenazi Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jew) life.


Obviously, the dogmatic assertion that there are "613 commandments" in the Torah is without foundation in history, in the text of the Torah, or in logic itself. And again, it would be totally anachronistic to suggest that first century Jews would be concerned with keeping a list of "613 commandments."

Brother Les
08-08-2011, 01:54 PM
Thank-you for your response, Ram.

I have just finished a book by Gary North on the 'Judeo/Christian Tradition'.....

Bottom line of his book... there is no 'Tradition' by either, as one , for each is a stand alone Religion. One, the Isrealite New Covenant Messianic Cultus (Christian) and the other Rabbitical PharissianHumanism. The term does not come from either 'religion', but from the secular community and used as an afront to the religious community.

Christians do not follow the Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Torah Law of the Messianic Covenant.

Like wise, Jews of Judaism do not follow Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Rabbitical Law ie. Laws made (up) and enforced by the old Pharessian Sect of Rabbis.

http://www.yoatzot.org/article.php?id=88

Torah & Rabbinic Law (D'Oraita & D'Rabbanan)"Torah law" (D'Oraita) includes not only the commandments stated in the Torah, but also their authoritative Rabbinic interpretation. "Rabbinic law" (D'Rabbanan) refers to decrees enacted by the rabbis after the Torah was given. These Rabbinic decrees protect and enhance our observance of Torah Law.
In most cases, Rabbinic law and Torah law are equally binding. Even when the Rabbis of the Talmud explicitly stated the reasoning behind an enactment, and circumstances have changed such that the reasoning no longer applies, the enactment remains in force unless formally revoked.
However, our sages sometimes built special leniencies into Rabbinic laws. In cases of doubt (safek), after the fact (bediavad), or in extenuating circumstances (bish'at hadechak), rulings concerning Rabbinic law may be more lenient. The application of these general principles to particular cases is complex. A posek (halachic decisor) must consider many halachic factors and practical details before issuing a ruling appropriate to the individual situation.


It is very interesting in reading of the Rabbis of the Talmud Cultus. One Rabbi making a decree in one direction and another making a decree in another direction and both being proclaimed as 'the law'.... but only if you (as a Jew) wish to follow what, if any law the you wish. The confusion runs deep and seems to be on par with the Koran in saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another. Knowing this, then the '613 commands' have nothing to do with the OT in the form of Gods Law of Ten, but mans law of unlimited......


And by the way, if one wants to argue that it is the OT that is the Judeo/Christian tradition, you must also add Islam with the other two as they also hold that the OT is part of their past.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Thank-you for your response, Ram.

I have just finished a book by Gary North on the 'Judeo/Christian Tradition'.....

Bottom line of his book... there is no 'Tradition' by either, as one , for each is a stand alone Religion. One, the Isrealite New Covenant Messianic Cultus (Christian) and the other Rabbitical PharissianHumanism. The term does not come from either 'religion', but from the secular community and used as an afront to the religious community.

I have always thought that the phrase "Judeo/Christian" was supposed to reflect the fact that the two religions relate like parent to child. But this, of course, is disputable because there was no single "Judaism" in the first century to be a "parent" of Christianity, and neither was there a single version of Christianity that could be considered the "child." The Bible itself recognizes two primary Judaisms (Pharisee and Sadducee) and scholars know of many other variations. The modern religion of Judaism is itself fragmented into Orthodox, Reformed, Hasidic, and whatnot, and none of them represent a single "Judaism" that supposedly existed in the first century because all modern forms have accumulated a mountain of man-made traditions passed off as "oral Torah" or "Rabbinical proclamations" or whatnot. Case in point - Dr. Sabra blithely imposed the relatively modern concept of "613 commandments" onto first century Judaism as if it were an established fact.



Christians do not follow the Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Torah Law of the Messianic Covenant.

That's correct. We know Christians after the destruction of 70 AD have never thought they should obey Torah, because if they did the first thing they would have done was REBUILD THE TEMPLE so they could go back to bloody animal sacrifices. They had all the opportunity in the world to do so since they controlled Jerusalem many times in history. But no Christian with any understanding would ever want to trample the blood of Christ by returning to carnal, bloody animal sacrifices that were TYPES, not the substance.



Like wise, Jews of Judaism do not follow Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Rabbitical Law ie. Laws made (up) and enforced by the old Pharessian Sect of Rabbis.

That's correct, and it is the source of gross corruption within the religion. The most obvious case is the practice amongst some Orthodox rabbis described in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html) from the New York Times:




A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

"This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.

So all it took was one pervert posing as a "Rabbi" and the next thing you know, you've got an unquestionable TRADITION to enforce! I saw similar kind of craziness in the Zohar. For example, it's author made up the idea that David did not sin with Bathsheba by inventing a host of ludicrous legal loopholes like "Uriah gave her a bill of divorce before going to battle" and on and on and on it goes. There are no standards by which to clean up the crap that infests religions. I find it particularly weird that the poor Jews can't enjoy a juicy steak because they must soak it overnight in water to ensure all the blood is removed while their "Rabbi" can suck a baby's bloody penis! That's just not right. This seems pretty typical of what religion does to the human mind.



It is very interesting in reading of the Rabbis of the Talmud Cultus. One Rabbi making a decree in one direction and another making a decree in another direction and both being proclaimed as 'the law'.... but only if you (as a Jew) wish to follow what, if any law the you wish. The confusion runs deep and seems to be on par with the Koran in saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another. Knowing this, then the '613 commands' have nothing to do with the OT in the form of Gods Law of Ten, but mans law of unlimited......

And don't forget the great pageantry of one infallible Pope contradicting the other! Again, it is the madness induced by religion which teaches people to not ask questions, and that the highest spiritual value is to be a gullible dupe that believes whatever one is told.



And by the way, if one wants to argue that it is the OT that is the Judeo/Christian tradition, you must also add Islam with the other two as they also hold that the OT is part of their past.
Yes, that is what the academics now do. They speak of the "Abrahamic religions" being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Brother Les
08-09-2011, 07:28 AM
Short, but very interesting read on what passes as Judaism of today that would appall Christians. Those of Judaism may claim Abraham as their Father, but it seems clear that Hagur is their mother.

Go to author Gary North, book title Judeo Christian Tradition.

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm

Richard Amiel McGough
08-09-2011, 09:25 AM
Short, but very interesting read on what passes as Judaism of today that would appall Christians. Those of Judaism may claim Abraham as their Father, but it seems clear that Hagur is their mother.

Go to author Gary North, book title Judeo Christian Tradition.

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm
I had to look around a bit to find it. You need to look on the sidebar for the "Books by title" link. Here is a direct link to the PDF:

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/the_judeo_christian_tradition.pdf

It looks like an interesting read.

Brother Les
08-09-2011, 11:51 AM
I had to look around a bit to find it. You need to look on the sidebar for the "Books by title" link. Here is a direct link to the PDF:

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/the_judeo_christian_tradition.pdf

It looks like an interesting read.

I tried to copy and paste the book set up page that gave you all of the details about the book and then you would be about to choose a pdf file. It always kicked it back to the start page of the web site. Duhhh :rolleyes:, should have used the url on the book, but would have lost the book detail page. Also, there are many other interesting books and authors to look over. I do not agree with all of them or all that they write, but they make one think a little more.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-11-2011, 05:33 AM
Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

Hi Lenny;
Your invited to read this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2014) on a discussion of the Sermon on the Mount.

What did Jesus mean when he refered to 'these lesser commandments'?

Verse 17 & 18 are parenthetical and contrasting within his deliverance of the sermon on the Mount. These 'lesser commandments' of verse 19 are not talking about the law; but about the instructions to the heart that he is then presently giving.

The fulfillment of the law included the prophesies about the fulfillment of the latter end of the national entity that it created. There were prophecies that had yet to be fulfilled in Jesus day and in the first century. Many here on this forum hold the view that the law including it's prophesied ends was fulfilled by the end of what would have been Jesus' natural lifespan or 'day' and that this fulfillment of the law included the latter end of God's administration through the law and the destruction of the temple.

Elsewhere you wrote:

The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).
This is not so; In Jer 31; it is stated that the new covenant [to those under the mosaic covenant] would be NOT LIKE the one made when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. It strongly implies, if not openly states, a Contrast of principles.

The same contrast is implied in John 1:17. For the law came by Moses; BUT grace and truth through Jesus Christ.


The contrast of the new prophet and His words, and love needed to supersede the law of Moses is found in Duet 5:25-29 and 18:15ff and declared fulfilled by Christ in John 5:46 and Acts 3:22-25. [The 'new' prophet of Deut 18 to bring the new words of the law of faith in God through knowledge of Him in Christ; of the new [to them] covenant.]

The contrast is implied in Deut 30:6ff where the circumcision and indwelling of the heart is fore-told along with the time of the latter end of the mosaic covenant in Deut 31:29 and chapter 32. Paul declares the circumcision and indwelling of the heart fulfilled in receiving Jesus in Rom 10:4-9.


The same contrast is found in Hebrews 10 where to revert to judaism and participate in the 'sin' of animal sacrifice and authority of the high Priests was to trample the blood of the covenant under foot. The 'contrast' is repeated in other places in Hebrews where if there was no fault with the 'old', there would have been no need to call the everlasting covenant 'new'.

This is the message of the blessing to the latter son over the first son. The 'latter son' represents the fulfillment of the Everlasting covenant [as taught in chapter 3] and the seed promised to Eve; "the" Covenant of Dan 9:27; 'my covenant' passed through Noah and Abraham and the characteristics of the experiences of the patriarchs [Ps 105:1-10; Rom 9]. The former son represents the conditional, land-nation, temporal covenant of the mosaic law which was NOT made with the fathers [though it was prophesied to them] See Deut 5:1-3.
1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Paul refers to this 'bondage' of the conditional/national law in Gal 4 as the first son; and Barnabus includes the blessings of the other latter sons over the first son as having the identical meaning.

Paul calls the law the administration of death in 2 Cor 3.

For more info and perspective of the temporal nature of the law, feel free to visit these question (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1992) which show that the mosaic covenant law was prophesied to have an end, 'latter end' and temporal purpose right when it was delivered by Moses.

dr_sabra
08-11-2011, 02:44 PM
Well, gents, interesting comments, but I find that the same misunderstandings that I have often commented upon on this site are myriad in your responses. It seems like you are basically talking to yourselves (='preaching to the choir', is it called?) I am on vacation on the Emerald Isle right now, so I won't take the time to pick your thoughts apart. I will when I get back home, however, in another 10 days. Should be fun to dissect the very things that I've been bringing up on this blogsite.

I still am hoping that there can be a bit more of a civility in the tone of the responses. We can all keep calm and speak with a little respect, n'est-ce pas?

Lenny

dr_sabra
08-14-2011, 11:03 AM
If sacrificing and participation in the Temple rituals was wrong, why did the early Messianic Jewish community continue taking part in such? (Acts 21 records such, some 30 years after Yeshua had died...my oh my! Either these 4 Messianic Jewish young men, and their financial sponsor [Shaul of Tarsus], and their community head [Yakov] were sinning, or they disagreed with the take that I'm reading about from you here).Cf. Acts 21.20-27. Was Shaul being a hypocrite, or did he see no contradiction between keeping the mitzvot of Torah, and his belief in Yeshua? It's one or the other, gents. [cf. Matthew 5.17ff].

dr_sabra
08-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Was Shaul carrying out "bondage" in Acts 21.21-27? Was he participating in the "administration of death?" If so, why is he not rebuked here? In fact, why is he encouraged to pay for the breaking of the Nazirite vow of the 4 Messianic Jews, which by the way, is a rabbinic takanah (injunction) onto the Written Torah's mitzvah of Numbers 6. Why would Yakov encourage Shaul to sin? Did he? And why would Luke tell us that "Look, brother, how many believers there are here, and they are all zealous for the Torah!" (cf. Acts 21.20). And what's this about taking "vows" (21.24). If it was "death", why would believers in Yeshua do this? Or were they sinful and ignorant Jews? Look at the list of things this entire community (in fact, the FIRST and home community of believers in Yeshua in history) was participating in: vows, proofs that their leaders were "obedient to the big, bad, nasty 'LAW'"...(v.24). Okay, I'm being a bit a facetious here, but gents, the 'law' first off, is not defined by you in your scathing criticisms of it. Take that word 'nomos' and please define it specifically, especially as per Acts 21. As I'm looking at Luke's historical recollection, it totally contradicts what you assert about things.

dr_sabra
08-14-2011, 11:25 AM
The 613 mitzvot are an agreed upon number by consensus within the Jewish world. What you quote re: arguments about the number of mitzvot is rather irrelevant to our conversation, nitpicking and simply part of the historical process of counting and agreeing upon a number (which did happen). And nowhere do I state that they must be kept totally, today, by anyone...it's impossible, gents. There is no Temple, and over half of the mitzvot are concerned with rituals performed at the Temple. So some of your concerns are really non-issues outside of just theory.

To other matters: "These 'lesser commandments' of verse 19 are not talking about the law; but about the instructions to the heart that he is then presently giving." Give me one historical Jewish source that agrees with you here. You won't find any. In fact, Dr Lapide, who greatly admired Yeshua and wrote a book about the Sermon on the Mount, would take strong issue with you here. The words used and the logical flow of this text clearly point out that Yeshua is talking about the written mitzvot of the Torah. Look at the word used: "entolon", which is agreed by all scholars is the Greek cognate to "mitzvah" in Hebrew (it is used as such in the Septuagint, and I cover this fact in my PhD thesis at length). Your assertion that it refers to 'heart' something or other is a jump in logic, a jump in the text to something out of the flow of his points in his previous verses, and you then talk about a category that in 2nd Temple Jewish thought and rabbinic writings doesn't exist, to my knowledge ("heart commands" or whatever it is that you termed it).
Lastly, I am really trying not to be antagonistic. I realize that calmly discussing matters is the only way to dialogue. So I am not going to say anything out of anger, but...the article about circumcision is really not posted in good taste. I find it anti-Semitic. No other words for it. Circumcision is a biblical practice done by Jewish communities for thousands of years, and one or two crooked mohels does not warrant a post like that and allegation of corruption to an entire community. I could counter that the Crusades and the silence of churches during the Holocaust proves the corruption of Christianity. That is a much bigger problem than one poor mohel.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-14-2011, 12:24 PM
Lastly, I am really trying not to be antagonistic. I realize that calmly discussing matters is the only way to dialogue. So I am not going to say anything out of anger, but...the article about circumcision is really not posted in good taste. I find it anti-Semitic. No other words for it. Circumcision is a biblical practice done by Jewish communities for thousands of years, and one or two crooked mohels does not warrant a post like that and allegation of corruption to an entire community. I could counter that the Crusades and the silence of churches during the Holocaust proves the corruption of Christianity. That is a much bigger problem than one poor mohel.
Hi Lenny, :yo:

Welcome back! You made a lot of interesting comments that will take a little time to answer, but I wanted to start with this one since it appears I have been misunderstood. There is nothing in that article that was meant as "anti-Semitic." There is nothing that was aimed at Jews per se. The point I was trying to make is the same point made by Christ on more than one occasion, namely, that human traditions tend to corrupt religion:
Matthew 15:1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "But you say, 'Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. 9 'But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'"
Obviously, Christ was not "anti-Semitic" when he exposed the errors in the Jewish traditions, and neither am I. Your false assertions are very rude and disgusting. You should not be trying to win arguments by accusing your opponents of being "anti-Semitic" or "fat" or "short" or any other thing. That's just ad hominem and it does not help you win the debate.

Now as for your response, you wrote:
Circumcision is a biblical practice done by Jewish communities for thousands of years, and one or two crooked mohels does not warrant a post like that and allegation of corruption to an entire community.
I was not saying anything against "circumcision" per se. So I must assume you mean that the practice of "oral suction" is limited to "one or two crooked mohels." If that were the case, I never would have cited that article and your criticism would be fully justified. But unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite. According to Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization, oral suction has been the Jewish practice for 5000 years. He is quoted in that article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html):




The use of suction to stop bleeding dates back centuries and is mentioned in the Talmud. The safety of direct oral contact has been questioned since the 19th century, and many Orthodox and nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it. Dr. Frieden said he hoped the rabbis would voluntarily switch to suctioning the blood through a tube, an alternative endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Orthodox rabbis.

But the most traditionalist groups, including many Hasidic sects in New York, consider oral suction integral to God's covenant with the Jews requiring circumcision, and they have no intention of stopping.

"The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years," said Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, after the meeting with the mayor. "We do not change. And we will not change."


The assertion that oral suction has been practiced for "over 5000 years" has no basis in fact. But it is the kind of thing that religions based on HUMAN TRADITION would assert. So how do we know that this tradition is from God? Is it in the Bible? No. Does it contradict the Bible? Yes, since God explicitly prohibits the eating of blood which would inevitably happen in this practice. Furthermore, it is just plain creepy and completely out of line with what most people would consider "biblical."

Just look at the Rabbi's assertion: "We do not change. And we will not change." What then do you do when false traditions enter into your religion? We know that there were false traditions at the time of Jesus 2000 years ago! How many more have been invented since that time? For example, you know that many Jewish teachings and traditions were designed to contradict the claims of Christ. So how do you "clean up" the traditions of Judaism if the Rabbis say "We do not change. And we will not change."?

That was the point of my post. I trust you can see and understand.

All the best,

Richard

dr_sabra
08-15-2011, 01:31 PM
Richard,
To quote Mr. Shakespeare, "something is rotten in Denmark". The practice of circumcision is not accompanied by oral suction as a regular practice. I have been at a good number of circumcision ceremonies spanning over 30 years and I have never seen this practiced. Not once. My neighbors (I live in Israel), my relatives, my friends, have never had a mohel do this to their male infants.My own sons and grandsons never had this done. The mohel who recently performed the circumcision ceremony of my grandson has performed over 7,000 circumcisions in his lifetime, and he has never used oral suction. So I don't know what is going on here.(?)

Richard Amiel McGough
08-15-2011, 02:16 PM
Richard,
To quote Mr. Shakespeare, "something is rotten in Denmark". The practice of circumcision is not accompanied by oral suction as a regular practice. I have been at a good number of circumcision ceremonies spanning over 30 years and I have never seen this practiced. Not once. My neighbors (I live in Israel), my relatives, my friends, have never had a mohel do this to their male infants.My own sons and grandsons never had this done. The mohel who recently performed the circumcision ceremony of my grandson has performed over 7,000 circumcisions in his lifetime, and he has never used oral suction. So I don't know what is going on here.(?)
Well, as you will note from the section of the article that I quoted (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html), it says that "many Orthodox and nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it."
"The use of suction to stop bleeding dates back centuries and is mentioned in the Talmud. The safety of direct oral contact has been questioned since the 19th century, and many Orthodox and nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it. Dr. Frieden said he hoped the rabbis would voluntarily switch to suctioning the blood through a tube, an alternative endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Orthodox rabbis."
Unfortunately, the article also states that it is done 2000 times a year in New York City alone ...
David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel, an umbrella organization of Orthodox Jews, said that metzitzah b'peh is probably performed more than 2,000 times a year in New York City.
And it says that Rabbi Fischer (who is at the center of this controversy), has done over 12,000 circumcisions:
In Rockland County, where Rabbi Fischer lives in the Hasidic community of Monsey, he has been barred from performing oral suction. But the state health department retracted a request it had made to Rabbi Fischer to stop the practice. And in New Jersey, where Rabbi Fischer has done some of his 12,000 circumcisions, the health authorities have been silent.

Rabbi Fischer's lawyer, Mark J. Kurzmann, said that absent conclusive proof that the rabbi had spread herpes, he should be allowed to continue the practice. Rabbi Fischer said through Mr. Kurzmann that the twin who died and the Staten Island boy both had herpes-like rashes before they were circumcised and were seen by a pediatrician who approved their circumcision. The health department declined to comment on its investigation.
But these facts don't really matter since they only illustrate a much larger problem. The real problem is with the religion of Judaism which is an explicitly "extra-biblical" if not "unbiblical" religion based on "oral traditions" (an unfortunate pun in this context) that can easily be corrupted. That was my point, and it is the same point that Christ made when he accused the Jewish leaders of teaching the "doctrines of men" as if they were of God. And this is the point that you have not addressed. So let me repeat: The Rabbis declare "We do not change. And we will not change." So what then do you do when false traditions enter into your religion? We know that there were false traditions at the time of Jesus 2000 years ago. How many more have been invented since that time? For example, you know that many Jewish teachings and traditions were designed to contradict the claims of Christ. So how do you "clean up" the traditions of Judaism if the Rabbis say "We do not change. And we will not change."?

Great chatting!

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-15-2011, 08:48 PM
Was Shaul carrying out "bondage" in Acts 21.21-27? Was he participating in the "administration of death?" If so, why is he not rebuked here?
We note in the account that it was prophesied that he would be delivered to the gentiles for testimony by the actions of the jews and that the believers tried to prevent him from Going into Jerusalem saying only finally.... let the lords will be done
.

11And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

We note that it was reported that He was telling the jews in the Gentile nations to forsake Moses:


21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

We note that either James or some of the leaders there imposed and requested of the cleansing ritual, even perhaps offering it as a test.

And we particularly note that as part of the fulfillment of the prophecy by Agabus, the 7 day ritual was not fulfilled but was interrupted in the providence, will and prophecy of God through the jews themselves who opposed the dichotomy of Pauls participation in the jewish ritual [with supposed Greeks] while teaching jews to forsake Moses.

I personally believe/feel that Paul allowed himself to go along with the beginnings of the ritual while knowing and believing that he would not fulfill it. Paul was experientially proving to the audience the 'will of God' concerning these issues and the consistency of 'God's will' that the mosaic rituals had no continual meaning.

You will disagree with this; but your opinion and criticism is of little weight and value to me.



Was he participating in the "administration of death?" If so, why is he not rebuked here?
Do you disagree or do you not understand that Paul was calling the mosaic covenant the 'administration of death' in 2 Cor 3?
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

I think you might be missing the concept that the rituals and instructions of Moses were part of a conditional and corporal contract that God offered to the children of Israel who were led through the wilderness. Through keeping these conditions, rituals and laws they were to obtain perpetual blessing in the land. The rituals and commands had foretelling implications about the Messiah.

Keeping a few of them while not being able to fulfill ALL of them was inadequate then and is of no condolence now.

It was prophesied that they would NOT be able to maintain these CONDITIONAL, CORPORAL institutions but would be 'utterly destroyed' from off the land (Deut 4:25,26).

And it was prophesied that they would experience a time of blessing followed by a time of cursing and captivity followed by a restoration to the land and a final end and latter end [Deut 31:29, 32;20,29] of the corporal contractual offering.

From the leaving and captivity of the norther tribes the contract was broken [Jer 31; Dan 9]and the ark of the covenant removed after the babylonian captivity. Daniel declares in his prayer of chapter 9 that the babylonian captivity was the fulfillment of the curse of the law of Moses which can only refer to Deut 28:15ff and Deut 30:1. The return to the land after the Babylonian captivity was prophesied in Deut 30:1-5 and the angel of Dan 9 interjected a 490 yr time-frame between verses 5 and 6 of Deut 30.


"These 'lesser commandments' of verse 19 are not talking about the law; but about the instructions to the heart that he is then presently giving." Give me one historical Jewish source that agrees with you here
Your actually quite funny. Why would I give you a 'jewish source'??....or even think to consider a 'jewish source'.? Aren't we individually promised the Holy Spirit of truth to guide and instruct?

Would Jesus refer to the law as the 'lesser commandments' if he were in fact promoting the law of Moses? Doesn't the use of the words 'lesser commandments' imply a contrast with something else in the text? Yes; it does. Jesus referred [I believe] to his teachings as the commandments and instruction of the kingdom of Heaven. It is contrast with the national entity [kingdom] of the conditional law of Moses. Vs 20 is another contrast of the laws of faith and commandments of Christ against the law of Moses represented by the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.


20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Elsewhere, people often presume that Paul supported the law by his writing in Rom 3:31.31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
But in the previous context, the law that is being established by Paul is the law of faith [and justification and righteousness by faith which is the way That God declares to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.]


27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works[in the mosaic law and deeds]? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Thus the message is opposite of what some attempt to make this state. And this supports that there is a contrast with the laws, commands and deeds of the law of Moses with the 'lesser commandments' of the laws of faith in God through Jesus and in His "lesser" or serving commands of humility.


Elsewhere you claimed anti-semetism. But pro-semetism is racism and anti-semetism in itself. It elevates a pseudo race contrary to the will of God. The promise of the seed to Eve to counter the effects of separation from God was to all peoples under Adam equally though fulfilled and wrought forth through God's orchestrations and manipulations of the physical descendants of Israel.
Abraham was told that through Him [justification by faith; not Nimrod's religion, nor the law of Moses] would ALL nations/peoples of the earth be blessed. Paul describes that blessing in Rom as being individually forgiven. Romans 3:22 and Rom 11:32 declare that the jew was counted in unbelief, just as the gentile, so that God might have mercy on all equally [in spite of the jews self-, law- or racial-righteous tendencies.]

I'm looking forward to other interactions with the inclusions in this (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33782&postcount=68) post.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-15-2011, 09:26 PM
If sacrificing and participation in the Temple rituals was wrong, why did the early Messianic Jewish community continue taking part in such? (Acts 21 records such, some 30 years after Yeshua had died...my oh my! Either these 4 Messianic Jewish young men, and their financial sponsor [Shaul of Tarsus], and their community head [Yakov] were sinning, or they disagreed with the take that I'm reading about from you here).Cf. Acts 21.20-27. Was Shaul being a hypocrite, or did he see no contradiction between keeping the mitzvot of Torah, and his belief in Yeshua? It's one or the other, gents. [cf. Matthew 5.17ff].
I find it very odd that you appeal to the community headed by Yakov in Jerusalem, since they are the people that were caused the problem in Galatia!
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from YAKOV, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? It seems to me that "Messianic Judaism" directly contradicts the plain text of Scripture at every turn. I am mystified how anyone could believe it.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-15-2011, 10:22 PM
I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
Should be end of discussion. It is recorded that Paul stated that Peter was living in the manner of Gentiles.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-15-2011, 11:30 PM
I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
Should be end of discussion. It is recorded that Paul stated that Peter was living in the manner of Gentiles.
It seems just about every other verse of the NT could be used to "settle" this issue. How anyone believes any of it is utterly beyond me.

Brother Les
08-16-2011, 10:14 AM
It seems just about every other verse of the NT could be used to "settle" this issue. How anyone believes any of it is utterly beyond me.

For one who does not 'believe any of it', You debate it very well. :yo:

Brother Les
08-16-2011, 11:06 AM
If sacrificing and participation in the Temple rituals was wrong, why did the early Messianic Jewish community continue taking part in such? (Acts 21 records such, some 30 years after Yeshua had died...my oh my! Either these 4 Messianic Jewish young men, and their financial sponsor [Shaul of Tarsus], and their community head [Yakov] were sinning, or they disagreed with the take that I'm reading about from you here).Cf. Acts 21.20-27. Was Shaul being a hypocrite, or did he see no contradiction between keeping the mitzvot of Torah, and his belief in Yeshua? It's one or the other, gents. [cf. Matthew 5.17ff].

You, who may call yourself a Messianic Jew should know why the Apostle Paul participated in the Temple Cultus Ritual more than anyone whom is goem.

This is of the Types and Anti-Types, of the Shadow and the Real. This is the same type of transitional period type of when Jesus Christ gave the Mosaic Law at Sinai to Moses to when Joshua circumcised the Children of those who had went into the wilderness 40 years before. Those who had wished to 'go back' and keep the laws of Egypt all died in the Wilderness. All others were re-born at the Marriage to the children of Israel (children of those who went into the desert) to YHWH/Christ.

It was only possable to be a 'Messianic Jew' from the timeline of Pentecost to the Holocaust/Marriage of AD70. From that point there was no division of Jew/Gentile but only The Body, The Church, Christian Israel (Sons of God).
Those whom call themselves 'Messianic Jews' are a remnent of a Fulfilled Coveant by the way of The Cross (the Perfect Sacrifice of the Maker of the Covenant, the Husaband) to the Judgments on the Harlot Wife (burning of The Temple, burning of Jerusalem, destruction of Judea and the whole Mosaic Cultus World) and to the Blessings of the Marriage of The Body/Church/Israel/The People by a New New...Christian.

Jesus said,
Matt. 5:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You, as a so-called Messianic Jew, understand very well that "Heaven and Earth" in this verse are the Leadership of the Mosaic cultus and The People of the Mosaic Cultus. The Apostle Paul knew very well that the Whole Law of Moses (the Law that the Pharisees rejected) could not pass away until all was Fulfilled pertaining to it. The Blessings (New Covenant Marriage) and Curses (destruction of the harlots who said "I am no widow") all had to pass before it could completely wax old and fade away to nothing. The Apostle Paul was a Jews Jew, a Pharisee of the Rabbinical Law. The Apostle Paul Rejected all of the Rabinical Laws that conflicted with the Temple Cultus Law of Moses. It now seems that these (so-called) Messianic Jews are under the Rabbinical Law. Which is a Law unto themselves and not of God, but of the Traditions of men. The Apostle Paul Forbid any Gentile that he taught to come under the Mosaic Covenantal practices, because he knew that for one, they had never been under the Law of Moses and had no obligation to it and because 'the Fathers' could not even bare it, but he also knew that it was coming to a swift Judgment End. The Elements of the Mosaic World were melting away and ready to be changed into the New Creation in AD70.
This is why at the Jerusalem conference that when James said to the Aposle Paul, that all of the Jerusalem Hebrew Christians were zealist for The Law, what is going on where Asian Judeizers (Christian Jews) were saying that that Paul toldthe Hebrews should forsake The Law of Moses. Paul told the Hebrews no such thing, Paul taught Christ + the Law of Moses until the Law of Moses was Gone, Paul had always told the Gentiles/the Nations to not go into the bondage of the works of the Law of Moses, but to Grace by Faith of Christ alone. The Apostle Paul Had to Keep the Law of Moses as long as the Tabernacle stood. Once The Tabernacle was gone, so was The Law of Death gone and he was free to marry another. You, who call yourselves Messianic Jews and try to keep a hybrid of The Law of Moses and The Rabbinical Law and The Law of Christ, your Sect (of The Way) waxed old and faded away and was destroyed in AD70. You are trying to practice a Fulfilled Covenantal Religion that does not exist any more. You were important during the Transition period from the Old to the New Covenant, but it seems that some of you have failed or never wanted to complete the transition. You want both the Faith and Grace of Christ/YHWH and the Works of Men by keeping the Rabbinical Law, but by these works you shall never have Grace, only Death in The Wilderness.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-16-2011, 11:08 AM
For one who does not 'believe any of it', You debate it very well. :yo:
Thank you for the kind words sir!

:signthankspin:

But to be clear, I don't reject all of it. I'm still sorting out what I do and don't believe. But after years of study, it's pretty easy to debate what it actually says - whether I "believe" it or not - because I know what it says and I can tell pretty quickly when something like "Messianic Judaism" cuts contrary to its natural grain.

Brother Les
08-16-2011, 12:01 PM
Brother Les
For one who does not 'believe any of it', You debate it very well.:yo:


Thank you for the kind words sir!

:signthankspin:

But to be clear, I don't reject all of it. I'm still sorting out what I do and don't believe. But after years of study, it's pretty easy to debate what it actually says - whether I "believe" it or not - because I know what it says and I can tell pretty quickly when something like "Messianic Judaism" cuts contrary to its natural grain.

I knew that you would take the 'poke' (and smile) for what it is, a loving compliment my friend.


What do you think of my last post? or shall we wait for the one who is of Pharisian tradition to answer. The Apostle Paul taught 'nothing but the Hope of The Fathers', ie the New Covenant and the New Creation that is made up of Christian Israel/ The Church.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-16-2011, 12:17 PM
The Apostle Paul Had to Keep the Law of Moses as long as the Tabernacle stood.

I disagree. Did the apostle Paul or any of the apostles continue in the sacrifice of animals [lamb] and doves after the sacrifice of Christ?

Isn't this the 'sin' of Heb 10 which if they returned to ritualistic religion, they were trampling the blood of Christ to an open shame.?

The mosaic law were beginning to be abbrogated from the time of the speaking ministry of Jesus who's words would supercede the words and instruction of Moses. There is a possibility that they kept the ordinances until they were chronologically fulfilled.

One proof of this is Jesus' and Peters event of the temple tax.
I believe that Jesus was gently rebuking Peter for stating that his master paid the temple/tribute tax to Moses. Jesus was indicating that children of God [and of his lordship] do not give tribute to Moses and the priesthood. Nonetheless, since Peter had spoken out of turn, he was to go to the source of his income while still under Moses to pay the temple support tax.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-16-2011, 01:09 PM
I knew that you would take the 'poke' (and smile) for what it is, a loving compliment my friend.

It's good to be understood! :sunny:



What do you think of my last post? or shall we wait for the one who is of Pharisian tradition to answer. The Apostle Paul taught 'nothing but the Hope of The Fathers', ie the New Covenant and the New Creation that is made up of Christian Israel/ The Church.
I think your dealt well with a very difficult issue. The "transition period" is very complex and hard to explain. That's why it is the foundation of many cults. Folks refuse to accept the main and plain things that are established with many witnesses and choose to build doctrines on obscure passages filled with uncertainties and questions.

Your emphasis on Acts 26 is right on:
Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
The "raising of the dead" of course is how Paul expressed the NT Gospel - we have been (past tense) raised with Christ.

And I think it's worth repeating how ironic it is that Lenny appealed to Yakov [James] in his attempt to prove that the law of bloody sacrifices and everything else in the Torah (613) still applies to Jews. Yakov of Jerusalem is the one who pushed Paul to subject himself to the legalism that is essential to Torah (contrary to Lenny's assertion that legalism is a perversion of Torah):
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James [YAKOV], he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
It is good to recall EndTimes excellent observation that Paul records the fact that the supposedly "Torah observant" Peter was living "in the manner of Gentiles." We have multiple witnesses within a single passage that expose the errors of Messianic Judaism.

But there is some tension in all this. Paul seemed willing to go along with Yakov's insistence that he "keep the law." But do we see anything like that in any of Paul's own epistles? Nope. We see just the opposite. So the event in Acts 21 does not function as authoritative teaching - it is a record of an event, not an apostolic teaching. This exemplifies once again how Messianic Judaism attempts to establish its doctrines on things that are obscure and not intended as "dogmatic instruction" and use them to void things that are plainly taught and confirmed by many witnesses.

Brother Les
08-16-2011, 01:41 PM
The Apostle Paul Had to Keep the Law of Moses as long as the Tabernacle stood. Once The Tabernacle was gone, so was The Law of Death gone and he was free to marry another




EndtimesDeut32/70AD;33946]I disagree. Did the apostle Paul or any of the apostles continue in the sacrifice of animals [lamb] and doves after the sacrifice of Christ?All Jews were under the obligation of the Mosaic Law and every Jot and Tittle as long as Heaven and Earth Stood.Jesus said,
Matt. 5:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Paul always went to the synaguage first in every town that he went to to keep the Saturday Sabbith. When Paul went back to Jerusalem for the second Jerusalem conference James makes the point of saying that many HEBREWS were coming to Christ and that they all are zealist for The Law (Mosaic Law NOT Rabbinical Law that the Pharisees were forcing onto The Peoples) James told paul to take 4 prosylites (ie Gentiles) to the Temple (for it was the time of one of the Feasts of The Lord) and pay for their Sacrifices, it also says that Paul went throught the purification process to BE CLEAN....All Jews were under The Mosaic Law until all wa Fulfilled. The Mosaic Law DID NOT END AT THE CROSS.
You should read all of Hebrews 8 to get a good context, but I will point this out.
Hebrews 8:
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


The Hebrew writer (I don't think the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews) when the Old Covenant would vanish away.

Hebrews 9:
8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


The Mosaic Covenant Age would end when the Temple came crashing down. By the time Titus saw the Temple burning, Judea was already destroyed and Jerusalem was crumbling around the surviving Jews. This is when The World Ended and a New Creation Began.




Isn't this the 'sin' of Heb 10 which if they returned to ritualistic religion, they were trampling the blood of Christ to an open shame.?


When reading what the Hebrew writer is saying through out Hebrews is that to NOT Go back to The Shadow, do not go back to the Cultus of Death. He is sayint that if any of it is kept then all of it has to be kept (this is a Messianic Jew of the timeline of 30AD-70AD)



The mosaic law were beginning to be abbrogated from the time of the speaking ministry of Jesus who's words would supercede the words and instruction of Moses. There is a possibility that they kept the ordinances until they were chronologically fulfilled.

One proof of this is Jesus' and Peters event of the temple tax.
I believe that Jesus was gently rebuking Peter for stating that his master paid the temple/tribute tax to Moses. Jesus was indicating that children of God [and of his lordship] do not give tribute to Moses and the priesthood. Nonetheless, since Peter had spoken out of turn, he was to go to the source of his income while still under Moses to pay the temple support tax.Hebrews 10
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Christ could not take the First Covenant away until the Judgments of that Covenant were kept. The Judgments were Blessings (New Covenant Marriage) the Judgments were Curses, Destruction of the unelect people, and their place and the removal of Death and Hell.


we must look back to the First Covenant Given. We see that the ten commandments were given at Sinai. But this was not the Marriage, this was only the Betrothal to marry. When Moses came down from the Mt and the people were acting the harlot God/Jesus struck down 3,000 and made that Generation wonder in the wilderness for wanting to go back to their god...Egypt. 40 years later the REPROACH OF EGYPT was rolled away from The People. This is the Time of the Marrage of YHWH/Christ to the children of those going into the wilderness. The very same type /anti-type is shown in the New Covenant Creation, the Reproach of The Old Covenant (Egypt/Sodom/Babylon/Jerusalem...) was rolled away from The People (who were born again as new babes) and The New Covenant Marriage accured.



The Apostle Paul was a Jew to the Jews, keeping all of the Laws of Moses until the Temple came down. And He was a Gentiles Gentile, preaching Salvation By Faith and Grace, alone TO GENTILES. Paul could never stop worshipping in a convenant (Mosaic ) that he was under, but he knew very well that it was transitioning away, day by day, unto the Fullness of its Fulfillment.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-16-2011, 03:28 PM
The Apostle Paul Had to Keep the Law of Moses as long as the Tabernacle stood.
Thanks les for your response.
I remain in disagreement; but have little interest in argument on this point at this time. But you interpret Matt 5 almost the way of Dr Sangria; except you limit the messianic jew area to the 30-70 AD time-period. I interpret it differently. I view vs 17 and 18 as contrasting parenthesis against Jesus new teachings of Grace and Truth to the individual.
Jesus said,
Matt. 5:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He is not commanding them to obey the least commandments of the law till the law and temple was removed; but instructing them to keep "these" least commandments of love which he was teaching them.

So you would say that Paul and the apostles continued in the animal sacrifice after the purpose of it's fore-shadow had been fulfilled.? [you did not continue the Heb 10 thought]

And how do you rectify Pauls declaration that Peter was living 'as the gentiles' and this even in Jerusalem.?

Brother Les
08-17-2011, 03:28 AM
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
Thanks les for your response.
I remain in disagreement; but have little interest in argument on this point at this time.

Little interest in the Transitional Period from the Covenant of Death to the Covenant of Life? This is want leads to much confusion through out Churchanity, no understanding of the Transition.


But you interpret Matt 5 almost the way of Dr Sangria; except you limit the messianic jew area to the 30-70 AD time-period. I interpret it differently. I view vs 17 and 18 as contrasting parenthesis against Jesus new teachings of Grace and Truth to the individual.

Jesus had no new teaching, Grace and Truth was from Adam. As for the timeline of Messianic Jews, it can only be from 30-70AD.



He is not commanding them to obey the least commandments of the law till the law and temple was removed; but instructing them to keep "these" least commandments of love which he was teaching them.

This shows your lack of understanding the metephoric term of 'Heaven and Earth' as Governments and Peoples. The Government and The people of the Old Covenant is what is in view here.



So you would say that Paul and the apostles continued in the animal sacrifice after the purpose of it's fore-shadow had been fulfilled.?

Yes. Did those wondering in the wilderness of Sinai stop dying? Were they 'married' to YHWH/Jesus during the 40 years? Scripture says that the Reproach of Egypt was on them until All of the 'men of war' (those against God) died in the wilderness. Same with the First Century. The OC had it's hold on 'The People' (Israelites) until all the 'Men of War' had died in the Jerusalem Holocaust. I know that you are having trouble 'seeing' that, but it is the 'Types and Anti-types'.



[you did not continue the Heb 10 thought]

No time to dig deep. But with the Sacrifice and covering of Sin, then also must be the Judgments, ie. Blessings and Curses... By the Law of Moses.... Do you not see that. The Fulfilling of The Law of Moses Must Follow the precepts that are in that (Mosaic) Covenantal Law....



And how do you rectify Pauls declaration that Peter was living 'as the gentiles' and this even in Jerusalem.?


Peter said by his 'Dream'....All is Clean. And this is true for those who could break completely away from the Temple Cultus. The Jerusalem church of Jews brought the Hebrews to Jesus by the reasoning of The Prophets and the Law of Moses. When Peter was with the Gentiles, Peter had to show the Jews of his Company that they (they Gentiles) were not or never were under the obligation of the law of Moses and that they also did not have to be if they forsook all of it.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
08-17-2011, 01:21 PM
Little interest in the Transitional Period from the Covenant of Death to the Covenant of Life? This is want leads to much confusion through out Churchanity, no understanding of the Transition.

Not what I said. I think we were through some of these thoughts in the other thread with this topic of Matt 5. I don't have much time or interest in repeating the argument. I agree with some of your points. We're in the same book on these issues if not yet on the same page.

Jesus had no new teaching, Grace and Truth was from Adam. As for the timeline of Messianic Jews, it can only be from 30-70AD.Jesus had new teaching and instruction in contrast with Moses conditional/corporal means of blessing. John 1:17. It was as the 'new prophet' of Duet 18 in contrast with Moses administration of the conditional law. Jesus was the fulfillment of the blessing promised to Abraham to 'all nations'.

Paul says that the blessing of Abraham is 'blessed is the man whos sins are forgiven; blessed is the man whose sins the lord does not count against him. In Rom 8 he affirms that there is now NO CONDEMNATION for those who's faith and allegiance is in Christ Jesus.

But were in agreement that Grace, Truth [and knowledge] had been promised by the Creator to Adam/Eve through the 'seed' and that faith in that promise was what Abel sacrificed towards.


This shows your lack of understanding the metaphoric term of 'Heaven and Earth' as Governments and Peoples. The Government and The people of the Old Covenant is what is in view here.
I dont' have lack of understanding in this matter, but commonly quote Job 38:33 to support the idea that "heaven' is the set of ordinances and "earth" is the domain of those ordinances.


Yes. Did those wondering in the wilderness of Sinai stop dying? Were they 'married' to YHWH/Jesus during the 40 years?
Even after the 40 yrs they were not 'married' to God, but married to the conditional corporal covenant as a means of 'blessing' and only within the land. Moses himself did not cross Jordan with Joshua. It was detailed in Deut 8 and 9 about why they were to enter the land and in that book, the covenant was described as a temporal covenant.

I do agree, if you implying, that the mosaic ordinances were a continuation to some extent of Egypt. Jerusalem is compared with Egypt in Rev 11:8 . Egypt had similar laws as the 10 commandments and were expressed in the negative. And we note that the Israelites that had come out of Egypt had desired a 'god' to follow after.


Scripture says that the Reproach of Egypt was on them until All of the 'men of war' (those against God) died in the wilderness. Same with the First Century. The OC had it's hold on 'The People' (Israelites) until all the 'Men of War' had died in the Jerusalem Holocaust. I know that you are having trouble 'seeing' that, but it is the 'Types and Anti-types'.
I see the types and anti-types. But John did not die in the holocaust. John remained. Furthermore, the remaining believers in Judea escaped to Pella and fled Judea at the right time did not die in the 'latter end'. They were the ones who preserved their souls by loving their fellow man and by NOT going to war. They would not fight along with the house of Israel nor against the Romans and many suffered loss of life under the high Priests influence in Rome for it.
[Rev 13?10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.] Some even of the first believers would be among those to escape. Some had fallen asleep, but others remained even of the 500 who had seen him risen from the dead.

This is part of the evidence and reasoning that the believers had to leave the jurisdiction and leadership of the mosaic and shadow covenant and NOT participate in it's ordinances. But also in leaving the mosaic covenant ordinances, they were proclaiming Christ as their authority and lord and freedom with their lives.

Again, Heb 10 instructs that to 'fall back' to the sin of participation in the mosaic ordinances and the blood sacrifice of bulls/goats was to trample the blood of the covenant [Christ's blood] under foot. Those who 'fell back' to the pressure of the judaizers in their actions would suffer the judgment that was to come upon them that was quoted from Deut 32 in Heb 10:30. Their actions, decisions and associations with the mosaic covenant had moral and spiritual implications of allegiance and jurisdiction. They were to remove themselves from the hope and rituals in the counter-covenant delivered by Moses and place hope and faith in the instruction of Jesus as Creator-God and life maker.

The instruction of Heb 10 goes against your statement that they did continue to participate in the blood sacrifice. They needed to separate from that jurisdiction [those heavens] and the high priests even though it would make themselves a prey.

And again; I believe that Jesus was instructing Peter in the temple tax incident that the sons of God and those under Jesus leadership were free from the jurisdiction, tribute and allegiance to Moses even at that time.

They remained in the land area 'domain' of the mosaic covenant through the 40 yrs till they re-crossed outside of the domain, thus reaffirming their dis-allegiance with it. But I believe that they left the ordinances and rituals [Heavens] of the types as the times and seasons at least as they were progressively fulfilled or instructed by the Holy Spirit. One example would be of Pentecost when they received power. Although they may have met in commemoration of Pentecost after that, they would not have met in obligation or in keeping the ordinances. Another was Peters vision of being free to eat the forbidden meats.


Peter said by his 'Dream'....All is Clean. And this is true for those who could break completely away from the Temple Cultus. The Jerusalem church of Jews brought the Hebrews to Jesus by the reasoning of The Prophets and the Law of Moses. When Peter was with the Gentiles, Peter had to show the Jews of his Company that they (they Gentiles) were not or never were under the obligation of the law of Moses and that they also did not have to be if they forsook all of it.
I see some of your points, but again note that Heb 10 strongly refutes your opinions. And I don't think Peters dream is only what Paul was referring to when he stated that Peter was living as a Gentile.

Once they placed faith and allegiance to Christ as God; to continue to sacrifice during the intercovanantal time was to sacrifice to God's their fathers did not know[as stated in Deut 32] and it was an abomination [as stated in Is 66].

Deut 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

16They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.

17They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

18Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

19And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.
Why would they provoke his sons and daughters if the sons and daughters were participating in the same sacrifice? See also Ez 14:13ff to note the individuality of the sons and daughters to separate from Jerusalem.


Isaiah 1:10Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

13Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

14Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. This is either referring to just before the Babylonian captivity or before the Roman desolation. See vs 1 and Romans 10. I believe Paul applies it to the first century.


Here Isaiah 66 has first century context.

Isaiah 66;1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

[Note the similar words of the sermon on the mount]

3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

5Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

16For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 59 refers again to the first century events as confirmed by Paul in Romans 11.

Isaiah 59:15Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. By departing from the jurisdiction and instruction of the conditional/corporal mosaic covenant and the leadership of the High Priests, they were making themselves a prey, even from almost the beginning as they stoned Stephen.

It is from these verses in Deut 32 and Is 66 and Heb 10, and Col 2 that I glean the perspective that they left the ordinances of the mosaic covenant as they became believers and progressively increased in understanding.

drs
01-10-2012, 12:11 AM
Friendly Greetings,

Even though David Friedman may not actually teach that Gentiles should obey the Torah the same way that Jews should, it's interesting to note that Ariel Berkowitz writes (in the forward, on page vi) that: "He [Friedman] observes that they provided living and loving examples to follow for all of us who believe in him."

So, if it's true that Friedman does not believe Gentiles should obey the Torah, then it's strange that Friedman would allow Berkowitz to write that Torah is for ALL believers.

Or, if Friedman believes that Gentiles and non-Gentiles should BOTH obey the Torah (but in distinct ways), then I wonder what distinctions Friedman has in mind.

Then again, I'm not sure Berkowitz is clear about whether Gentiles should obey the Torah either. In Berkowitz' book, "Torah Rediscovered", he writes the following:

1. "Must" and "should" should not be used in regards to Gentile observance of Torah (p. 64, Torah Rediscovered).
2. Believers (Jewish and non-Jewish) "should" live out what is written in the Word--"all of the Word". (p. 85, Torah Rediscovered).

I think it's pretty clear that #1 and #2 are rather inconsistent.

So, I'm not sure if either Berkowitz or Friedman are very clear in their writings regarding whether Gentiles should (in some sense) obey the Torah, or whether Gentiles and non-Gentiles should observe Torah in the same way.

If anyone can clarify their positions, then please inform.

best.

heb13-13
01-11-2012, 12:50 AM
Jesus became the end of the Torah because He is the Living Torah.

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

Jesus then continues, "I came to fulfill the Law" (Matt. 5:17). In other words,
"I came to fill the Law full; to bring to full fruition all that the Law pointed
to pictorially and custodially." "I came to fulfill the Law, by being the
dynamic directive of God, the living Torah, in the lives of His People." To
"fulfill" means more than just to fulfill the promises and the prophecies
historically. It carries with it the theological meaning of completing,
actualizing, consummating the Law by becoming its full intended content.

The best thing I have ever read on the Law of God!! This will even dispel David Friedman's confusion.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/lawgod.html

Richard Amiel McGough
01-11-2012, 01:28 PM
Friendly Greetings,

Even though David Friedman may not actually teach that Gentiles should obey the Torah the same way that Jews should, it's interesting to note that Ariel Berkowitz writes (in the forward, on page vi) that: "He [Friedman] observes that they provided living and loving examples to follow for all of us who believe in him."

So, if it's true that Friedman does not believe Gentiles should obey the Torah, then it's strange that Friedman would allow Berkowitz to write that Torah is for ALL believers.

Or, if Friedman believes that Gentiles and non-Gentiles should BOTH obey the Torah (but in distinct ways), then I wonder what distinctions Friedman has in mind.

Then again, I'm not sure Berkowitz is clear about whether Gentiles should obey the Torah either. In Berkowitz' book, "Torah Rediscovered", he writes the following:

1. "Must" and "should" should not be used in regards to Gentile observance of Torah (p. 64, Torah Rediscovered).
2. Believers (Jewish and non-Jewish) "should" live out what is written in the Word--"all of the Word". (p. 85, Torah Rediscovered).

I think it's pretty clear that #1 and #2 are rather inconsistent.

So, I'm not sure if either Berkowitz or Friedman are very clear in their writings regarding whether Gentiles should (in some sense) obey the Torah, or whether Gentiles and non-Gentiles should observe Torah in the same way.

If anyone can clarify their positions, then please inform.

best.
Hi drs, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I agree with your observations, and would add that Friedman himself said that all "followers of Messiah" should obey Torah. Here's the quote:


It behooves followers of Messiah to develop a theology that is true to the pattern of observance found in the Scriptures. While doing so, care must be taken to fulfill the mitzvot in a merciful manner, without placing pressure on others to do as we do. Therefore, speaking as one who believes in a merciful, grace-filled, and Torah-observant Messianic Judaism, I urge a closer study of Yeshua's practice of Torah observance. He is the perfect role model.



To present Christ as the "perfect role model" of "Torah observance" implies that all believers should follow suit. The fact that Friedman's followers must tangle themselves in a morass of meaningless double-talk only confirms that there is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of his teaching.

Richard

drs
01-11-2012, 10:40 PM
Hi drs, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I agree with your observations, and would add that Friedman himself said that all "followers of Messiah" should obey Torah. Here's the quote:



To present Christ as the "perfect role model" of "Torah observance" implies that all believers should follow suit. The fact that Friedman's followers must tangle themselves in a morass of meaningless double-talk only confirms that there is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of his teaching.

Richard



Hello,

It seems that Friedman could simplify modify his position by claiming that all believers should continue to grow in maturity in obedience to the Torah.

I don't understand why Friedman would not want to gently pressure others to grow into maturity (cf. Heb. 6:1).

So, Friedman might hesitate (for reasons I don't understand) to gently pressure Gentiles to grow into maturity in obedience to the Torah.

But, if Friedman simply started gently pressuring everyone (all believers) to grow in obedience to the Torah, then his position would appear to be coherent and sustainable.

Regarding Romans 10:4, he could simply note that Yeshua is the purpose of the Torah.

Regarding other anti-Torah websites, he could simply assert that pro-Torah Messianic websites are better justified.

best,
drs

Richard Amiel McGough
01-11-2012, 11:53 PM
Hello,

It seems that Friedman could simplify modify his position by claiming that all believers should continue to grow in maturity in obedience to the Torah.

I don't understand why Friedman would not want to gently pressure others to grow into maturity (cf. Heb. 6:1).

So, Friedman might hesitate (for reasons I don't understand) to gently pressure Gentiles to grow into maturity in obedience to the Torah.

But, if Friedman simply started gently pressuring everyone (all believers) to grow in obedience to the Torah, then his position would appear to be coherent and sustainable.

Regarding Romans 10:4, he could simply note that Yeshua is the purpose of the Torah.

Regarding other anti-Torah websites, he could simply assert that pro-Torah Messianic websites are better justified.

best,
drs
One point in your comments stands out to me. It seems you think that Christians should "obey Torah." Is that what you intended? Christians should go back to sacrificing animals and all that?

drs
01-12-2012, 07:29 PM
One point in your comments stands out to me. It seems you think that Christians should "obey Torah." Is that what you intended? Christians should go back to sacrificing animals and all that?


Hello,

Thanks for asking....

Christians can not sacrifice animals in a temple because there is no temple, presently.

The Temple Institute website (as I recall) claims that about 200 distinct commands in the Torah pertain to ceremonial activities of that sort. Of course, such commands are not presently observable because there is no temple, presently. But, if (when) a temple is rebuilt, then these commands can be obeyed again.

Christians can, however, grow in obedience to the Torah (obeying as much as is presently observable and properly applicable).

So, if Friedman simply taught that all believers (disciples) should grow in obedience to the Torah by obeying as much as they properly can, then his position would appear to be coherent and compelling.

Basically, he could say that Yeshua walked in obedience to the Torah, so we should too.

He could say that the apostles walked in obedience to the Torah, so we should too.

He could even say that all believers (disciples) are grafted into Israel as Israelites, so Christians should grow in obedience to the Torah because that's their covenant obligation as Israelite participants in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking that Friedman could say.

best,
drs

heb13-13
01-12-2012, 08:04 PM
Hmmm, Jesus interfered with the stoning of a woman caught in adultery.

He transgressed the Sabbath.

"Faith allows you to do things that law doesn't."

Such as having mercy and compassion.

Here is what Law allows. The death penalty for an assortment of crimes.

Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11,13-14)
Contacting
spirits (Leviticus 20:26-27)
Working on the Sabbath (Numbers 20:26-27)

Worshipping false gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
False prophets who deceive the people to reject God (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Influencing others to worship
false gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Disobedience of a child including gluttony
and drunkeness (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
A new bride not being a virgin
(Deuteronomy 22:13-14,21)
Adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22)
Rape and fornication of an engaged (married) woman (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)


Why would anyone want to go back to being Torah observant? Back to the Shadows?

Jesus is the end of the Law. Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Righteousness comes by faith, now.

The law was not abolished and will always be around, so if the law won't die and release us from marriage then we must die. And we die in Christ and are raised to newness of life to serve God in the new way of the Spirit and not the old way of the letter.

Rom 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Choose who you are going to be married to. You can't be married to Christ and to the Law.

Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.


Jesus is Victor over Religion

Richard Amiel McGough
01-12-2012, 10:15 PM
Jesus is the end of the Law. Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Righteousness comes by faith, now.

The law was not abolished and will always be around, so if the law won't die and release us from marriage then we must die. And we die in Christ and are raised to newness of life to serve God in the new way of the Spirit and not the old way of the letter.

Yeah, I'd like to know what "dead to the law" means to folks who advocate obeying Torah.

And I'd also like to know why Paul taught that no one should get circumcised. That seems to directly contradict the idea that Christians should obey Torah.

And why did Paul say that the Law brought death, not life? And why did he contrast faith vs. Torah? Etc., etc., etc. The idea that Christians should obey Torah seems to contradict most of the NT. Of course, the thing in Matthew 5:17-18 throws in enough confusion to make for good conversation.

drs
01-14-2012, 01:33 AM
Hmmm, Jesus interfered with the stoning of a woman caught in adultery.

He transgressed the Sabbath.

"Faith allows you to do things that law doesn't."

Such as having mercy and compassion.

Here is what Law allows. The death penalty for an assortment of crimes.

Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11,13-14)
Contacting
spirits (Leviticus 20:26-27)
Working on the Sabbath (Numbers 20:26-27)

Worshipping false gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
False prophets who deceive the people to reject God (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Influencing others to worship
false gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Disobedience of a child including gluttony
and drunkeness (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
A new bride not being a virgin
(Deuteronomy 22:13-14,21)
Adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22)
Rape and fornication of an engaged (married) woman (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)


Why would anyone want to go back to being Torah observant? Back to the Shadows?

Jesus is the end of the Law. Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Righteousness comes by faith, now.

The law was not abolished and will always be around, so if the law won't die and release us from marriage then we must die. And we die in Christ and are raised to newness of life to serve God in the new way of the Spirit and not the old way of the letter.

Rom 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Choose who you are going to be married to. You can't be married to Christ and to the Law.

Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.


Jesus is Victor over Religion




Hello,

I'm thinking that Friedman could answer like this....

Friedman could say that conflicts between competing instructions within the Torah naturally arise from time to time, and the proper Torah-obedient response to such conflicts is to recognize the hierarchical structure of Torah instruction so that actions may be performed in obedience to the weightiest of all applicable Torah principles. So, Friedman could say that Yeshua's actions were always in accordance with the weightiest of all applicable Torah principles, even in cases where lighter Torah principles were not obeyed. In this sense, we can all walk and grow and mature in obedience to the Torah, just as Yeshua walked in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say that any apparent Sabbath violation was simply an instance of an action performed in obedience to a weightier Torah principle. Thus he could say that the Sabbath is not abolished, but merely overcome by weightier Torah principles in special circumstances.

Friedman could say that faith does not justify rejection of applicable Torah instruction.

Friedman could say that mercy is, indeed, a Torah principle (Mt. 23:23).

Why observe Torah? Friedman could say that Yeshua did, so we should too.

Friedman could say that the apostles did, so we should too.

Friedman could say that YHVH commands obedience to the Torah, so we should obey YHVH.

Friedman could say that the prophets commanded obedience to the Torah, so we should obey the prophets, because the prophets are not abolished.

Friedman could say that the Ketuvim command obedience to the Torah, so we should obey the commands in the Ketuvim.

Friedman could say that all believers are grafted into Israel as Israelites, so all believers should obey the Torah because this is their duty and obligation as Israelite participants in the covenants between YHVH and Israel.

Friedman could say that all believers are participants in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel; so, all believers should obey the Torah.

Friedman could say that Yeshua is the Living Torah, so all believers should obey (not oppose and violate!) the Torah which Yeshua personifies.

Friedman could say that all Scripture should correct and train us in righteous behavior; so, all believers should perform acts of righteousness in obedience (not opposition!) to the Torah.

Friedman could say that we have no good reason to deny that all believers should continue to grow and mature in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say that observation of a shadow-casting substance does not entail that the shadow ceases to exist.

Friedman could say that the shadows of the Torah are not abolished, but continue to function to point to Yeshua, because Yeshua continues to be the purpose of the Torah.

Friedman could say that he has no good reason to suppose that all believers should not grow in maturity and obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say that Yeshua is the purpose (not the termination) of the Torah, because Paul (in Romans 10) appeals to the authority of Deuteronomy 30 which affirms that (1) the Torah is not too difficult, and (2) the Torah is (by faith, says Paul) in our mouth and heart so that we may obey it.

Friedman could say that righteousness has ALWAYS come by faith.

Friedman could say that we serve in newness of the Spirit who writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we will grow in obedience to it.

Friedman could say that we do not serve in oldness of the letter, because the old (and incorrect) idea that righteousness comes not by faith, but by faithless works of Torah-obedience, is contrary to the righteousness that has always been available to those who walk by faith.

Friedman could say that, in Yeshua, we are dead to the curse of the Torah so that we may walk in the blessing of obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say that the fruit of our actions should be growth in obedience to the Torah (for all the reasons listed above).

Friedman could say that we can't be married to the Messiah and also the curse of the Torah.

Friedman could say that we can be married to the Messiah who IS the Torah made flesh.

Friedman could say that we should walk in obedience to the Torah which our Messiah personifies, and which He commands us to grow in obedience to.

Friedman could say that sin should not have dominion over us (via our faithless Torah-violations and subsequent curses) because we are positionally righteous by faith, and we are (in practice) continuing to grow in maturity by manifesting righteous actions of obedience to the Torah in keeping with repentance.

Friedman could say that we are not under the law (in any negative sense), but we walk in growth in obedience to the Torah (in a positive sense). The Torah, after all, has many purposes (not just one). So, the fact that we are not under the law (in a negative sense) does not entail that we are not expected to grow in obedience to the Torah (in a positive sense).

Friedman could say that we are dead to the law because the curse of the Torah does not apply to someone who has already died. And, since we have already died to the curse of the Torah (via our identification with the Messiah in Whom we live), we are consequently not subject to the condemnation that comes to those who are under the curse of the Torah. This does not imply that the Torah has no other purpose for us who have been raised to newness of life in the Messiah. And, this surely need not require the assumption that it is wrong for believers to grow in faithful obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say that since the accusation was false that Paul opposed Jewish infant male circumcision, it follows that Paul taught obedience to Jewish infant male circumcision.

Friedman could say that since Paul taught obedience to the Torah, we may infer that Paul also taught obedience to the ethnically independent command regarding infant male circumcision (Lev. 12:3).

Friedman could say that since the Torah of Moses does not command adult male Gentile convert circumcision, it follows that Paul's opposition to adult male Gentile convert circumcision does not contradict the Torah of Moses.

Friedman could say that the Torah brings death via faithless human disobedience to the Torah, but the Spirit (who writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we may obey it) does not bring death.

Friedman could say that Paul contrasts faith and Torah because faithless righteousness-by-works Torah-obedience is bad, and faith-filled Torah-obedience (with righteousness by faith) is good. So, Paul was not opposing and abolishing the Torah, but merely opposing improper usage of the Torah.


Well, my dear friends, this is a position we need to think about.

Yes, Friedman did not set forth all these things in his book......but he could argue this way if he wanted to do so.

And, if Friedman did argue in this way, then it would appear that his argument is quite compelling.

best,
drs

heb13-13
01-15-2012, 12:07 AM
Hey there drs,

The reality is that the law cannot give us life. Only the exchanged life of Jesus Christ can give us life.
Gal 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

The law is good as Paul said but it cannot give us life. It show us our inadequacy to achieve righteousness by observing it and only brings forth death in us.
Rom 7:5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

It is only as we are reconciled to God by and through Jesus Christ that we receive His life which is what saves us.
Rom 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Because the strength of sin is the law
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The Christian's victory now comes through the indwelling Christ who is joined to our spirit, not a mind full of the rules and regulations.
1Co 15:57
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, the only law that a Christian needs to be concerned with is the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Our (the Christian's) High Priest is Jesus Himself, who fulfilled what
Heb 7:16
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

The law / commandment was unprofitable to bring us life, God's life in us.
Heb 7:1
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

We draw near to God now because of our Mediator and High Priest, Jesus Christ, not by observing Torah.
Heb 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


No more commentary is really needed.

Heb 7:20
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

Heb 7:21
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

Heb 7:22
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

Heb 7:24
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Heb 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Heb 7:26
For such an high priest became us,who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Heb 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

I can continue, but I hope you are getting the message. You should continue reading Hebrews 8, 9 and 10.

May the Lord help us all,
Rick

drs
01-15-2012, 01:39 AM
Hey there drs,

The reality is that the law cannot give us life. Only the exchanged life of Jesus Christ can give us life.
Gal 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

The law is good as Paul said but it cannot give us life. It show us our inadequacy to achieve righteousness by observing it and only brings forth death in us.
Rom 7:5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

It is only as we are reconciled to God by and through Jesus Christ that we receive His life which is what saves us.
Rom 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Because the strength of sin is the law
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The Christian's victory now comes through the indwelling Christ who is joined to our spirit, not a mind full of the rules and regulations.
1Co 15:57
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, the only law that a Christian needs to be concerned with is the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Our (the Christian's) High Priest is Jesus Himself, who fulfilled what
Heb 7:16
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

The law / commandment was unprofitable to bring us life, God's life in us.
Heb 7:1
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

We draw near to God now because of our Mediator and High Priest, Jesus Christ, not by observing Torah.
Heb 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


No more commentary is really needed.

Heb 7:20
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

Heb 7:21
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

Heb 7:22
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

Heb 7:24
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Heb 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Heb 7:26
For such an high priest became us,who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Heb 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

I can continue, but I hope you are getting the message. You should continue reading Hebrews 8, 9 and 10.

May the Lord help us all,
Rick







Friendly Greetings,

Thank you for the Scriptural passages which you have cited.

Friedman could agree that faith in Yeshua (not faithless Torah-obedience) results in life. He could argue that we grow in obedience to the Torah because we are commanded to do so, not because we earn life through that obedience.

Friedman could agree that faithless Torah-obedience is sinful and brings forth death.

Friedman could agree that Rom. 5:10 is true, while also emphasizing that all believers should grow in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could argue that the reason that the strength of sin is the Torah is because faithless sinners are subject to the curse of the Torah, leading to death. However, we believers are raised to newness of life in the Messiah, so we may grow in obedience to the Torah, just as we are commanded to do.

Friedman could agree that our victory is through the Messiah (not through a mind full of rules and regulations). And, the Messiah commands us to walk in obedience to the Torah. So, we should walk in obedience to the rules and regulations of the Torah, because that's what we are commanded to do as disciples of Yeshua.

Friedman could agree that the law of sin and death (via faithless Torah-violations and subsequent curses) is not applicable to disciples of Yeshua because we who are disciples partake in the law of the Spirit of life. However, this does not justify rejection of our obligation to walk in obedience to the Torah as commanded in the Scriptures. Indeed, it is the Spirit who writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we will obey (not oppose and violate!) it.

Friedman could argue that Yeshua is not a Levitical priest (cf. Heb. 7:16), but this does not justify rejection of our duty and obligation to grow in obedience to the Torah, just as the Scriptures command us.

Friedman could argue that your reference to Heb. 7:1 is apparently a typo.

Friedman could agree that we draw near to God through Messiah Yeshua, not through faithless Torah-obedience. And, after drawing near by faith, we grow in obedience to his commandments as an expression of our love for Him. That's why we grow in obedience to the Torah, just as the Scriptures command.

Friedman could agree that the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic Torah-covenant in various respects. Nevertheless, this does not require the assumption that the Mosaic Torah-covenant is abolished.

Friedman could argue that Heb. 7:20-28 is also consistent with the claim that all believers should grow in obedience to the Torah.


Thank you for referencing Hebrews 8, 9, and 10. Friedman could argue as follows:

Heb. 8:10 --> Friedman could argue that Christians are participants in the New Covenant, in which the Torah is written upon their hearts so that it will be obeyed (not opposed and abolished!) from the heart.

Heb. 8:12 --> Friedman could say that Greek "adikia" is sin, and sin is violation of Torah. So, Christians should not sin, but obey the Torah.

Heb. 8:13 --> Friedman could say that the old (Mosaic Torah) Covenant has not yet passed away, so Christians should obey the Torah, since the Torah is still in force even during the New Covenant era.

Heb. 9:14 --> Friedman could say that Christians should serve God, whose commands are found in the Torah of Moses. So, Christians should obey the Torah.

Heb. 9:26 --> Friedman could say that Yeshua came to put away sin, so sin must be bad. Christians should do good (not bad). Sin is violation of the Torah. So, Christians should do good in obedience to the Torah, not do bad in disobedience to the Torah.

Heb. 10:12 --> Friedman could say that Yeshua came to be a permanent sacrifice for sins. So, sin must surely be bad. Sin is violation of the Torah. Christians should do good (not bad). So, Christians should obey (not disobey) the Torah.

Heb. 10:15-16 --> Friedman could say that the Holy Spirit writes the Torah upon our hearts. So, we should obey (not oppose!) the work of the Spirit in our lives by growing in obedience to the Torah.

Heb. 10:26-27 --> Friedman could say that it is bad to sin. Sin is violation of the Torah. Christians should do good. Thus, Christians should do good in obedience to the Torah.

Heb. 10:36 --> Friedman could say that Christians should obey God's will (Heb. 10:36). God desires that His commands be obeyed. God's commands are in the Torah of Moses. So, Christians should obey God's will by walking in obedience to the Torah, just as God has commanded.

So, thank you for sharing your thoughts and bringing these passages of Scripture before us.

It appears that Friedman could argue a compelling case.

He could argue that we (all believers) should obey the Torah,

just as YHVH commands us,

just as Yeshua commands us,

just as the Prophets command us,

just as the Psalms affirm,

just as the Apostles taught,

just as the Covenants entail,

just as the consistent theme of Scripture instructs.

best,
drs

heb13-13
01-15-2012, 08:38 AM
just as the consistent theme of Scripture instructs.

best,
drs[/QUOTE]

Hi drs,

I wonder how Friedman would answer these questions?

Christianity is NOT a Book Religion
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotbrel.html


1. What was your initial reaction/response after reading this article?

2. How do you think Christianity can become a religion of the Book?

3. Since the Bible is like any other book, literature, history, poetry, etc., how is it not like any other book?

4. In your own words, define the term 'Bibliolatry'.

UNBIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE

5. Please answer the following statements either true or false.

'we trust the Bible because of it’s sufficiency as the Lord’s perfect word' (Bible). 2 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 9:8

'We find true freedom from the Bible because our freedom comes from the Bible'. Gal. 1:16; Jn. 14:6

'The Bible is our 'blue print' for knowing how to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'. 2Pt. 3:18

'We can trust the Bible the same way we can trust in Christ because the Living Word (Jesus) and the written word (the Bible) are the same thing'. 2 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 9:8

'Believing the Bible results in eternal life'. Jn. 5:39; Jn. 17:3

6. What does it mean to you to deify someone or something?

7. What happens when you take an attribute of God, such as His eternality, absoluteness, authority, power, sufficiency for living, holiness, sanctification, inerrancy, etc., and attribute these to the Bible?

8. As you read the Bible and come across words such as 'word', 'ordinance', 'doctrine', 'commandments', 'teaching', 'revelation', 'precepts', etc., do you automatically think of your bound canonized Bible you carry with you?

9. Do you realize that these terms are not talking about the bound canonized Book we carry with us to church?

AN HISTORICAL REVIEW OF BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING

10. What do you gather from reading Rom.11:33, 36; 1 Cor.8:6?

11. When you think of the phrase 'out of His Being' what comes to mind?

12. Since God is a Being of expression, does it make sense that He expresses Himself form an intent, purpose, or plan?

13. In what ways can you think of God expressing Himself?

14. What is God’s primary expressional intent?

15. How is it that we as Christians can express God’s character? See page eight. (Sorry, I don't know what article he is referring to).

16. What are some ways that would be manifested in our words, attitudes, thinking, and actions?

17. Write down one key truth that speaks to you from these verses.

Rom. 2:4; 9:23; Eph. 1:7; 3:8,16; Col. 1:27; 2:2; 1 Cor.8:6.

18. From these key truths, write down one that is most meaningful to you right now and explain why?

19. What is the spiritual resource that makes expressing God’s character possible in our behavior? See 2 Cor.4:4; Col. 1:15.

20. What was it the Pharisees missing when they searched the Scripture? Jn. 5:38, 39.

21. What were they searching for?

22. Would you say people are searching today for the same thing?

23. What to you do the words 'objectify', 'tangibilize', and 'absolutize mean to you?

24. How do we get to know God? 2 Cor.4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3

25. Would you agree that as Jesus was nearing the end of His earthly ministry that He would have some important departing words?

26. What does Jesus tell them, 'make sure you keep my teachings', 'I am leaving you something someday you will call a Bible', or 'I will send the Helper that He may be with you forever'? Jn.14:16, 17, 23, 26.

27. From the verses from question twenty-six, what does Jesus do?, what does the Father do?, What does the Father send?, How is the One sent described?, Where will the One sent abide or live?, and what will this sent One do in relation to you?

28. Jesus did not promise to send a Book or a 'statement of faith' or a 'theological work'. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

29. Why do you think God cannot be reduced to volumes written in the vocabularies of men? Jn. 21:25.

30. What does the phrase 'man’s receptivity to God’s activity' mean to you?

31. When you consider the early Church had no personal copy of the Scripture, and that the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, and approximately eighty percent of the people were illiterate and couldn’t read even if they wanted to, and that they were mostly Gentiles with no religious Bible background, how do you think they lived the Christian life?

32. Do you think that when the early Church got together that they did 'Bible Study', as we know it? If not what do you think they did?

33. Do you agree or disagree with the Statement by Robert Brinsmead? Why or why not?

A BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE

34. True or false:

Christians today often use the Bible as a rule Book.

Christians today use the Bible as a guide for morality and ethics.

Christians today use the Bible as 'proof texts' to defend Christian doctrine.

35. According to Jn.5:38-40, what is the primary purpose of the Bible? See also Jn.. 20:30, 31.

36. Do the verses above bear witness to a written document or a Person? Is the book mentioned in verse thirty something we believe in, or Someone they point to?

37. According to 2Tim. 3:15, what Scripture was Paul talking about?

As you read this passage in the past, did you automatically think of the bound canonized Bible you hold in your hand?

38. Why couldn’t Paul be referring to the New Testament?

39. Read the last paragraph on page sixteen and read page seventeen as to what the author says about the word of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

40. When you read Rom. 15:4 what is our hope to be in? Read also Col. 1:27.

41. In the past when you read Eph. 6:17, where the 'word of God' is mentioned, did you think of this as the canonized Bible of 66 books, 39 in O.T. and 27 in the N. T., rather than the personalized word of God that God speaks to the Christian? The word 'word' here in Greek is
Rhema rather than Logos.

42. The author lists seven verses pertaining to the use of the 'word' what does the author say this refers to? Do you agree or disagree?

Why or why not?

43. What are your thoughts on the following statement:: 'The Spirit of Christ, who is Truth (Jn.14:6), may utilize the Bible to reveal and disclose Himself. But He does not require the written Book in order to do so. The Teacher is not tied to the text! The Spirit is not bound in the Bible! Christ is not chained or contained in the words of a Book'!

44. Has this article and it’s teaching gone against what you were taught about how to view the Bible?

45. Do you view the Bible as an 'end to a means', or more instrumental for the Spirit of Christ to use if He chooses to?

46. As you think about the dynamic reality of the living Christ, underline the statement that you believe to be the most accurate and true.

'We learn primarily from the Bible'

'We learn primarily from Jesus Christ Himself by His Spirit'

'We are to put our faith in the Bible'

'We are to put our faith in Jesus Christ'

'We are to put our hope in the Bible'

'We are to put our hope in Jesus Christ'

'Our love for the Bible'

'Our love for Jesus'

47. When you were a kid did you ever see something in a catalog that you just had to have. So your parents ordered it for you. Everyday, while you were waiting for the item to arrive you would open the catalog and look at the picture anticipating its arrival. The day comes when it arrives, and your all excited. But then you take the package and set it aside unopened, and go back and continue to look at the picture in the catalog. Now, does that make any sense? The reality has arrived, but you continue to look at the catalog, a 'picture book'. In a sense that is what the Old Testament is, a picture book pointing to the arrival of the Reality, Jesus Christ. It is an instrument that points us to Someone.

Can you say after reading this article that Christianity is Not a Book Religion, but Christianity IS Christ?

I wonder what Friedman would say?

All the best,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough
01-15-2012, 04:49 PM
Hi drs,

I wonder how Friedman would answer these questions?

Christianity is NOT a Book Religion
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotbrel.html


Hey there Rick, :yo:

This looks like a very interesting set of questions. Thanks for posting them. They will help me see where I am now compared to where I used to be.

1. What was your initial reaction/response after reading this article?
Curiosity.

2. How do you think Christianity can become a religion of the Book?
That is how it is defined. Paul said he taught nothing that was not in the OT. Jesus quoted the OT, and the first Christians began collecting their own "Scriptures" very quickly after Christ. And given that most of the questions below are linked to Bible verses, it seems absurd to suggest that Christianity is anything but a "religion of the Book."

3. Since the Bible is like any other book, literature, history, poetry, etc., how is it not like any other book?
It makes an interesting pattern when displayed in the form of a wheel.

4. In your own words, define the term 'Bibliolatry'.
Worshipping the Bible. Teaching that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."

UNBIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE

5. Please answer the following statements either true or false.

'we trust the Bible because of it’s sufficiency as the Lord’s perfect word' (Bible). 2 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 9:8
False because the Bible is not perfect.

And according to 2 Cor 3:5 and 9:8 our sufficiency is of God.

'We find true freedom from the Bible because our freedom comes from the Bible'. Gal. 1:16; Jn. 14:6
False.

'The Bible is our 'blue print' for knowing how to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'. 2Pt. 3:18
False, but that contradicts 2 Pet 3:18 since the only way you know anything about Jesus is through the Bible. But if you want to say that you learn about the grace and truth of Christ directly without the Bible, then why do you keep quoting it?

'We can trust the Bible the same way we can trust in Christ because the Living Word (Jesus) and the written word (the Bible) are the same thing'. 2 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 9:8
False.

'Believing the Bible results in eternal life'. Jn. 5:39; Jn. 17:3
False.

6. What does it mean to you to deify someone or something?
To make it equal with God. Like orthodox Christianity does with Jesus.

7. What happens when you take an attribute of God, such as His eternality, absoluteness, authority, power, sufficiency for living, holiness, sanctification, inerrancy, etc., and attribute these to the Bible?
You get some highly detailed confusion!

8. As you read the Bible and come across words such as 'word', 'ordinance', 'doctrine', 'commandments', 'teaching', 'revelation', 'precepts', etc., do you automatically think of your bound canonized Bible you carry with you?
I used to think that way, and in many contexts it might be correct (since that's what the author may have intended).

9. Do you realize that these terms are not talking about the bound canonized Book we carry with us to church?
Yes.

AN HISTORICAL REVIEW OF BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING

10. What do you gather from reading Rom.11:33, 36; 1 Cor.8:6?
Romans 11:33 says that God's ways are unfigureoutable.
1 Cor 8:6 says that everything is from the father, through the son.
What do I gather from those verses? I don't know what you are trying to get at.

11. When you think of the phrase 'out of His Being' what comes to mind?
Panenthesism. God is all in all. God is the Ground of Being" in whom "we move and live and have our being."

12. Since God is a Being of expression, does it make sense that He expresses Himself form an intent, purpose, or plan?
It doesn't even make sense to describe God as "he." And the idea that God has a purpose is rather like thinking a tree has a "purpose" to grow leaves. Yes, they serve a "purpose" but that purpose was not planned or designed by a conscious agent. The leaves emerge from the tree because that is how the tree expresses itself.

13. In what ways can you think of God expressing Himself?
Like leaves on a tree.

14. What is God’s primary expressional intent?
Love.

15. How is it that we as Christians can express God’s character? See page eight. (Sorry, I don't know what article he is referring to).
Become a Buddhist and devote yourself to realizing compassion for every sentient being.

16. What are some ways that would be manifested in our words, attitudes, thinking, and actions?
Love and compassion. You might even become vegetarian.

17. Write down one key truth that speaks to you from these verses.

Rom. 2:4; 9:23; Eph. 1:7; 3:8,16; Col. 1:27; 2:2; 1 Cor.8:6.
Rom 2:4 - Karma
Rom 9:23 - Twisted doctrines that no one understands.
Eph 1:7 - Pagan ritual of blood atonement/rebirth.
Eph 3:8 - Paul really thought that he was the greatest because he claimed to be the least.
Eph 3:16 - The Spirit is what gives us strength.
Col 1:27 - Universalism
Col 2:2 - Entheogenic transformation (discovering God within yourself).
1Cor 8:6 - The Gnostic Pleroma in which the Source (Father) is expressed through the Son (Logos)

18. From these key truths, write down one that is most meaningful to you right now and explain why?
Understanding and discovering the Divinity within myself that is the root Source of All and of which I am but one expression.

19. What is the spiritual resource that makes expressing God’s character possible in our behavior? See 2 Cor.4:4; Col. 1:15.
Meditation. Mindfulness. Compassion for all others.

Be like God and have unconditional love for all sentient beings.

20. What was it the Pharisees missing when they searched the Scripture? Jn. 5:38, 39.
Strong's Concordance.

21. What were they searching for?
The place where it said that they couldn't watch TV ono the Sabbath. Or if you want to quote the Bible (even thought it's not relevent because Christianity is not a religion of the Book) I would suggest reading Romans 9:31.

22. Would you say people are searching today for the same thing?
Absolutely not. Few of us in the 21st century have any need for the "righteousness" taught in an ancient superstitious text that prohibits us from eating lobster or picking up sticks on Saturday!

23. What to you do the words 'objectify', 'tangibilize', and 'absolutize mean to you?
Just what they mean in the dictionary, I suppose.

24. How do we get to know God? 2 Cor.4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3
Directly or inferrentially. Christians would add "throught the Bible."

25. Would you agree that as Jesus was nearing the end of His earthly ministry that He would have some important departing words?
Is that a trick question?

26. What does Jesus tell them, 'make sure you keep my teachings', 'I am leaving you something someday you will call a Bible', or 'I will send the Helper that He may be with you forever'? Jn.14:16, 17, 23, 26.
That's not really a question.

27. From the verses from question twenty-six, what does Jesus do?, what does the Father do?, What does the Father send?, How is the One sent described?, Where will the One sent abide or live?, and what will this sent One do in relation to you?
Jesus said he would send the Spirit and the Spirit would live in the believer. Unfortunately, there is no way for anyone to know that the "Spirit" is living in them and many deluded people mistakenly think it is. So this doesn't have any practical significance.

28. Jesus did not promise to send a Book or a 'statement of faith' or a 'theological work'. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you keep quoting it? This presentation is very ironic you know. I agree with you that the Bible is not promised in the Bible, but without the Bible you'd have now knowledge of Christ. Christianity is totally a "religion of the Book."" This series of questions is proving that over and over. The irony is gonna cause me to break a rib!

29. Why do you think God cannot be reduced to volumes written in the vocabularies of men? Jn. 21:25.
For exactly the same reason the Ultimate Reality cannot be reduced to written words.

30. What does the phrase 'man’s receptivity to God’s activity' mean to you?
It means that the person is focusing on Ultimate Reality (God) and willing to do what it takes to maintain consciousness of the Divine.

31. When you consider the early Church had no personal copy of the Scripture, and that the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, and approximately eighty percent of the people were illiterate and couldn’t read even if they wanted to, and that they were mostly Gentiles with no religious Bible background, how do you think they lived the Christian life?
Same way as anyone today. The listened to the preacher man and obeyed his commands.

32. Do you think that when the early Church got together that they did 'Bible Study', as we know it? If not what do you think they did?
Ate mushrooms. Saw God. Said "wow!"

33. Do you agree or disagree with the Statement by Robert Brinsmead? Why or why not?
Don't know him.

A BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE

34. True or false:

Christians today often use the Bible as a rule Book.
True. And they always did. They had the OT you know, and they referenced it as a "rule book." It was their "Bible."

Christians today use the Bible as a guide for morality and ethics.
True and false. They only pretend to most of the time. They are really using their own judgment informed (or misinformed) by ten thousand things, most importantly the culture the grew up in, the version of Christianity they believe, etc.

Christians today use the Bible as 'proof texts' to defend Christian doctrine.
True. And so did all the NT writers.

35. According to Jn.5:38-40, what is the primary purpose of the Bible? See also Jn.. 20:30, 31.
Do you want me to use those verses as proof texts against proof texts? :hysterical:

36. Do the verses above bear witness to a written document or a Person? Is the book mentioned in verse thirty something we believe in, or Someone they point to?
Both.

37. According to 2Tim. 3:15, what Scripture was Paul talking about?
Probably the OT.

As you read this passage in the past, did you automatically think of the bound canonized Bible you hold in your hand?
Not automatically. But it was an inferrence I felt was justifiable at the time.

38. Why couldn’t Paul be referring to the New Testament?
Cuz it wasn't written yet?

39. Read the last paragraph on page sixteen and read page seventeen as to what the author says about the word of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Can't answer - don't have the pages.

40. When you read Rom. 15:4 what is our hope to be in? Read also Col. 1:27.
Oh, probably something like "salvation" or more specifically, to be resurrected.

41. In the past when you read Eph. 6:17, where the 'word of God' is mentioned, did you think of this as the canonized Bible of 66 books, 39 in O.T. and 27 in the N. T., rather than the personalized word of God that God speaks to the Christian? The word 'word' here in Greek is
Rhema rather than Logos.
The "rhema vs. logos" thing is total bunk. Both are used to refer either to the written or the spoke "word of God."

42. The author lists seven verses pertaining to the use of the 'word' what does the author say this refers to? Do you agree or disagree?

Why or why not?
Missing those pages again. Dang!

43. What are your thoughts on the following statement:: 'The Spirit of Christ, who is Truth (Jn.14:6), may utilize the Bible to reveal and disclose Himself. But He does not require the written Book in order to do so. The Teacher is not tied to the text! The Spirit is not bound in the Bible! Christ is not chained or contained in the words of a Book'!
That's great! I agree completely! God could talk through the Sunday Comics if he likes. Of courses, this only exascerbates the contradiction of this whole series of questions which is using the Bible to prove that we shouldn't rely on the Bible. Very ironic, I say!

44. Has this article and it’s teaching gone against what you were taught about how to view the Bible?
Who cares what I was "taught?"

45. Do you view the Bible as an 'end to a means', or more instrumental for the Spirit of Christ to use if He chooses to?
If God can use anything, why are you focusing on the Bible so much?

46. As you think about the dynamic reality of the living Christ, underline the statement that you believe to be the most accurate and true.
I don't believe any of them.

47. When you were a kid did you ever see something in a catalog that you just had to have. So your parents ordered it for you. Everyday, while you were waiting for the item to arrive you would open the catalog and look at the picture anticipating its arrival. The day comes when it arrives, and your all excited. But then you take the package and set it aside unopened, and go back and continue to look at the picture in the catalog. Now, does that make any sense? The reality has arrived, but you continue to look at the catalog, a 'picture book'. In a sense that is what the Old Testament is, a picture book pointing to the arrival of the Reality, Jesus Christ. It is an instrument that points us to Someone.
Yes, that's what I would have said when I was a Christian. And it still could be true, though not in the contradictory way that is enshrined in Christian Dogma.

Can you say after reading this article that Christianity is Not a Book Religion, but Christianity IS Christ?
Absolutely not. It has completely confirmed that Christianity is a religion of the book. But it is interesting that it disguises itself as a gnostic religion in which the believers get a mystical "Spirit" that directly reveals "God's truths" without any book or priest or anything like that. And that's the contradiction. If Christianity is not a religion of the book, then open you mind to all the other books out there and glean truth from the all. I think that would be great!

Thanks for the interesting set of questions. It was a little long, but I'm glad I took time to answer.

Richard

drs
01-15-2012, 07:02 PM
Hello Rick,

Friedman could say: "Sure, the Scriptures point to Yeshua. But, Yeshua also points to the Scriptures. So, they properly go TOGETHER. And, it makes no sense to ignore, oppose, and abolish the very Torah which Yeshua personifies."

Friedman could say that Yeshua said that Scripture can not be broken (Jn. 10:35). So, Christianity properly focuses upon Yeshua, AND Yeshua confirms that Scripture is authoritative for determining our faith and actions. Christians should grow in obedience to the Torah because this is the consistent message of Scripture.

Friedman could say that ALL Scripture should teach and correct our behavior (2 Tim. 3:16). So, since the Torah is Scripture, it follows that Christians should walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could agree that textual criticism proves that our modern Bibles do not come with 100% certainty regarding the precise content of the autographa. Nevertheless, he could argue that the Bible is authoritative for determining that Christians should walk in faithful obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could argue that believers do not worship the Bible, but they worship the God who inspired the Scriptures such that they are authoritative for determining that Christians should walk in faithful obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could argue that Christians should focus upon the BOOK (Heb. "sepher") of the Torah (Dt. 29:21; Dt. 30:10; Dt. 31:26; Jos. 1:8; Jos. 23:6; etc...). So, Christians should walk in obedience to the Torah, just as the Scriptures instruct.

Friedman could argue that we should, indeed, submit to God (Jas. 4:7). But, God (YHVH) commands obedience to the Torah. So, Christians should walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could agree that we should obey Yeshua (1 Pe. 1:2). And, since Yeshua commands obedience to the Torah, Christians should walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could agree that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in Yeshua (Eph. 1:3), AND we who are in Yeshua should walk in obedience to the Torah, just as Yeshua and Paul instruct us to do.

Friedman could conclude that it is simply unscriptural to attempt to separate a Yeshua-focused Christianity from a Torah-established basis for determining our faith and actions. Remember, the Torah was not abolished and destroyed. Rather, it became a Person in the flesh who showed us how to walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could agree that the Scriptures should lead us to receive life by coming to Yeshua (Jn. 5:39-40) Who confirms that Christians should walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could argue that book-religion and Bible knowledge and Scriptural instruction do not properly detract from one's relationship with Yeshua, but only enhances that relationship as we grow in grace and in KNOWLEDGE (2 Pe. 3:18) of Yeshua who confirms that Christians should grow in obedience to the Torah, as determined from the Scriptures.

Friedman could state that you have not provided us with good reasons for denying our Christian duty to grow in obedience to the Torah,
as commanded (taught) by YHVH, Yeshua, the Prophets, and the Apostles.

best,
drs

heb13-13
01-15-2012, 11:51 PM
Well, thank you very much Richard and drs!

You guys are were very gracious to take the time to read all those questions and you Richard are incredible. You actually answered them. You are awesome!

It shows me that we all approach questions from the point of view of our individual faith.

I find it interesting that Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit and and then used Scripture to rebuke the Devil. Well, why not? The Devil quoted Scripture at Him.

There are extremes in Christianity to be sure. There are the objective people that (supposedly) walk by every word in the scriptures and judge others by the same.
Then there are the subjectivists who major only on the "spirit", talk to angels, dream dreams and see visions. Either extreme is, well, extreme. The subjectivists say that the objectivists have no love and are probably not saved while the objectivists think the subjectivists are easily deceived because they don't read their Bible. To be sure there are more camps than this. And probably the same things occurs in other religions.

Muslims call Christians "the people of the Book" for good reason as Christendom has made Christianity into Religion. Though true Christianity is not a religion. Though some Christians regard themselves as the people of God, Muslims or any other religion would never go on record stating that.

1Pe 2:10
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Does it matter whether anyone thinks Christians are the "people of God"? I don't think so. It doesn't matter to me.


Heb 11:25
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;


Some Christians are flattered that they are called the "people of the Book". I'm not flattered nor offended. It has no meaning to me.

Heb 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

All the best Richard.
Rick

By the way, your answers were enjoyable to read. Thanks again for the effort you put into it. You probably already know what I would say. If not, the next post will help you.

heb13-13
01-15-2012, 11:59 PM
Hello Rick,

Friedman could say: "Sure, the Scriptures point to Yeshua. But, Yeshua also points to the Scriptures. So, they properly go TOGETHER. And, it makes no sense to ignore, oppose, and abolish the very Torah which Yeshua personifies."

Friedman could say that Yeshua said that Scripture can not be broken (Jn. 10:35). So, Christianity properly focuses upon Yeshua, AND Yeshua confirms that Scripture is authoritative for determining our faith and actions. Christians should grow in obedience to the SPIRIT because this is the consistent message of Scripture.

Friedman could say that ALL Scripture should teach and correct our behavior (2 Tim. 3:16). So, since the Torah is Scripture, it follows that Christians should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could agree that textual criticism proves that our modern Bibles do not come with 100% certainty regarding the precise content of the autographa. Nevertheless, he could argue that the Bible is authoritative for determining that Christians should walk in faithful obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could argue that believers do not worship the Bible, but they worship the God who inspired the Scriptures such that they are authoritative for determining that Christians should walk in faithful obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could argue that Christians should focus upon the BOOK (Heb. "sepher") of the Torah (Dt. 29:21; Dt. 30:10; Dt. 31:26; Jos. 1:8; Jos. 23:6; etc...). So, Christians should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT, just as the Scriptures instruct.

Friedman could argue that we should, indeed, submit to God (Jas. 4:7). But, God (YHVH) commands obedience to the SPIRIT. So, Christians should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could agree that we should obey Yeshua (1 Pe. 1:2). And, since Yeshua commands obedience to the SPIRIT, Christians should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could agree that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in Yeshua (Eph. 1:3), AND we who are in Yeshua should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT, just as Yeshua and Paul instruct us to do.

Friedman could conclude that it is simply unscriptural to attempt to separate a Yeshua-focused Christianity from a SPIRIT-established basis for determining our faith and actions. Remember, the Torah was not abolished and destroyed. Rather, it became a Person in the flesh who showed us how to walk in obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could agree that the Scriptures should lead us to receive life by coming to Yeshua (Jn. 5:39-40) Who confirms that Christians should walk in obedience to the SPIRIT.

Friedman could argue that book-religion and Bible knowledge and Scriptural instruction do not properly detract from one's relationship with Yeshua, but only enhances that relationship as we grow in grace and in KNOWLEDGE (2 Pe. 3:18) of Yeshua who confirms that Christians should grow in obedience to the SPIRIT, as determined from the Scriptures.

Friedman could state that you have not provided us with good reasons for denying our Christian duty to grow in obedience to the SPIRIT, as commanded (taught) by YHVH, Yeshua, the Prophets, and the Apostles.

best,
drs


Ahhh, Friedman made some mistakes. It looks much better now.

Obedience to God by the inner reality of the Spirit cannot be reduced to a list of dos and don'ts. Our once impersonal and distant relationship has become a personal, intimate relationship and an expression of love for God. Christians have been set free to obey God by the Spirit as His laws are now written in their hearts. Our once heartless routine, burdened down by laws that our uncircumcised hearts detested has been transformed by the love of God that has been shed abroad in our hearts by Jesus Christ.

'For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:5)


The Bible refers to this as 'faith working through love' (Galatians 5:6) and being 'led by the Spirit' (Galatians 5:18, Romans 8:14). This type of obedience cannot be realized by external laws and a list of do's and don'ts. The law is just a skin/epidermis (skin deep). The deeper reality of being led by the Spirit in conjunction and relationship with Jesus Christ by the Spirit is what pleases God, because it is of faith. You don't need faith to obey external laws. The Bible speaks of this in various ways... 'for whatever is not from faith is sin.' (Romans 14:23) 'It is impossible to please God without faith.' (Hebrews 11:6)

The law is not of faith... Galatians 3:12

Circumcision is a good example of the contrast between the ceremonial law and the work of the Spirit in place of the ceremonial law: 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ...' (Colossians 2:11) The apostle Paul wrote to Gentiles, 'Don't forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders by birth. You were called 'the uncircumcised ones' by the Jews, who were proud of their circumcision, even though it affected only their bodies and not their hearts.' (Ephesians 2:11) The ceremonial law only changed the exterior, but the Holy Spirit changes our heart.

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh (obedience to outward laws)? (Galatians 3:2-3 (http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29105/eVerseID/29105))

Paul then goes on to explain how Abraham was justified by faith and shows that the only way anyone can be justified is by faith.

You can't get much clearer than this Mr. drs.

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6

"...And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 1 John 5:6b

Revelation 2:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:29&version=NIV)
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.


Have a wonderful Monday,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough
01-16-2012, 09:59 AM
1Pe 2:10
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Does it matter whether anyone thinks Christians are the "people of God"? I don't think so. It doesn't matter to me.

This is a curious verse that leads to much disputation. Dispensationalists and "Hebrew roots" folks would emphasize that the letter "applies" only to literal physical Israelites because Peter addressed his letter to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad." But if that's true, then why is he saying that they, the twelve tribes of Israel, were "not the people of God?" It sounds very much like Peter is talking about Gentiles that were "grafted in."



Heb 11:25
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Some Christians are flattered that they are called the "people of the Book". I'm not flattered nor offended. It has no meaning to me.

Given the great emphasis upon the "Book of the Law" in the Bible, and that believers are exhorted to adhere to it, meditating in it day and night, and not turning to the left or right from what it says, I find it very odd that you find the phrase "people of the book" to be "meaningless." That phrase has been quite meaningful to many Christians who came before you, has it not?



Heb 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Yeah, that pretty much identifies the NT "people of God" as Christians.



All the best Richard.
Rick

By the way, your answers were enjoyable to read. Thanks again for the effort you put into it. You probably already know what I would say. If not, the next post will help you.

It got a little tedious, but it was interesting for the most post. I wanted to see how my sense of things has changed over the last couple years.

Great chatting, my friend!

Richard

heb13-13
01-16-2012, 11:06 AM
This is a curious verse that leads to much disputation. Dispensationalists and "Hebrew roots" folks would emphasize that the letter "applies" only to literal physical Israelites because Peter addressed his letter to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad." But if that's true, then why is he saying that they, the twelve tribes of Israel, were "not the people of God?" It sounds very much like Peter is talking about Gentiles that were "grafted in."


Given the great emphasis upon the "Book of the Law" in the Bible, and that believers are exhorted to adhere to it, meditating in it day and night, and not turning to the left or right from what it says, I find it very odd that you find the phrase "people of the book" to be "meaningless." That phrase has been quite meaningful to many Christians who came before you, has it not?


Yeah, that pretty much identifies the NT "people of God" as Christians.


It got a little tedious, but it was interesting for the most post. I wanted to see how my sense of things has changed over the last couple years.

Great chatting, my friend!

Richard

Hi Richard,

It will be interesting to take that test again in 5 years (for both of us).

Hey, the reason that I say we are not the "people of the Book", is because Christendom has so elevated the Bible to the point of bibliolatry that I am just elevating Christ. That is all.

There is balance that has been lost between the written word and the Spirit.

Christendom has made Christianity a belief-system, right believing religion, right and wrong religion, do gooder religion, morality and ethics system. But Christianity is neither one of those. Christianity is Life in Christ. Christianity is Christ. This is what Christendom has lost and we see the abysmal fallout of the religionists eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Because of Jesus Christ, man has been given the option of Life or Death. Jesus has given us the option of Divine Life, not a set of rules or laws. The only law that the Christian is concerned with and applies to them is the "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". No other laws apply regarding his new life in Christ.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all may come to repentance and life in Jesus. (2 Peter 3:9)

He does not send any man to hell but He does respect the choosing creatures that He made us and if we choose toidentify with "the one having the power of death, the devil" (Heb 2:14), then He won't forcefully overturn that choice. There are only two alternatives: Everlasting Life or everlasting death and we choose to reside in perpetuity by our choice. The issue is life and death and Christ is Life, Christianity is Christ.

Take care,
Rick

Rom 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Rom 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-16-2012, 11:42 AM
Hi Richard,

It will be interesting to take that test again in 5 years (for both of us).

Hey, the reason that I say we are not the "people of the Book", is because Christendom has so elevated the Bible to the point of bibliolatry that I am just elevating Christ. That is all.

There is balance that has been lost between the written word and the Spirit.

Christendom has made Christianity a belief-system, right believing religion, right and wrong religion, do gooder religion, morality and ethics system. But Christianity is neither one of those. Christianity is Life in Christ. Christianity is Christ. This is what Christendom has lost and we see the abysmal fallout of the religionists eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Because of Jesus Christ, man has been given the option of Life or Death. Jesus has given us the option of Divine Life, not a set of rules or laws. The only law that the Christian is concerned with and applies to them is the "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". No other laws apply regarding his new life in Christ.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all may come to repentance and life in Jesus. (2 Peter 3:9)

He does not send any man to hell but He does respect the choosing creatures that He made us and if we choose toidentify with "the one having the power of death, the devil" (Heb 2:14), then He won't forcefully overturn that choice. There are only two alternatives: Everlasting Life or everlasting death and we choose to reside in perpetuity by our choice. The issue is life and death and Christ is Life, Christianity is Christ.

Take care,
Rick

Rom 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Rom 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Hey there Rick,

Yes, it would be interesting to see how we both would answer those questions in five years. I know I would have answered very differntly five years ago!

I understand you intent, that you want to de-emphasize the "book" aspect of Christianity in favor of the "Christ" aspect. But in reality, Christianity is nothing but a "religion of the book" because any personal experience with "Christ" will be "all over the map" without the Bible ... or even with the Bible, as you well know! :p

So you idea that Christianity is "really" about Christ is fine as a personal opinion, but it has no foundation in any fact that I can see, since nobody has any evidence of the reality of Christ. It's a personal "faith thing" right?

You assertion that "Because of Jesus Christ, man has been given the option of Life or Death." seems to directly contradict the doctrines of Election and Predestination. How do you deal with that?

Also, you assertion that God "does not send any man to hell" seems to directly contradict many Scriptures. No person "sends themselves to hell." They are CAST into the Lake of Fire. It as an action by God because of his judgment upon the sinners. Trying to mollify it and say that people send themselves to hell directly contradicts the entire idea of a Sovereign God who exercises his sovereignty in judgment.

It is an error to suggest that God would have to "forcefully" override free will to redeem everyone. The vast majority of people who reject the faith do so because they are being honest about their beliefs. If God is as generous as you suggest, then no man need fear being cast into hell, because God would never do that against their will!

I like that! By your logic, we all get what we want! Free beer and hotdogs for eternity! It's gonna be a party ... or is that not what you meant to imply?

Great chatting,

Richard

drs
01-16-2012, 11:51 AM
Ahhh, Friedman made some mistakes. It looks much better now.

Obedience to God by the inner reality of the Spirit cannot be reduced to a list of dos and don'ts. Our once impersonal and distant relationship has become a personal, intimate relationship and an expression of love for God. Christians have been set free to obey God by the Spirit as His laws are now written in their hearts. Our once heartless routine, burdened down by laws that our uncircumcised hearts detested has been transformed by the love of God that has been shed abroad in our hearts by Jesus Christ.

'For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:5)


The Bible refers to this as 'faith working through love' (Galatians 5:6) and being 'led by the Spirit' (Galatians 5:18, Romans 8:14). This type of obedience cannot be realized by external laws and a list of do's and don'ts. The law is just a skin/epidermis (skin deep). The deeper reality of being led by the Spirit in conjunction and relationship with Jesus Christ by the Spirit is what pleases God, because it is of faith. You don't need faith to obey external laws. The Bible speaks of this in various ways... 'for whatever is not from faith is sin.' (Romans 14:23) 'It is impossible to please God without faith.' (Hebrews 11:6)

The law is not of faith... Galatians 3:12

Circumcision is a good example of the contrast between the ceremonial law and the work of the Spirit in place of the ceremonial law: 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ...' (Colossians 2:11) The apostle Paul wrote to Gentiles, 'Don't forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders by birth. You were called 'the uncircumcised ones' by the Jews, who were proud of their circumcision, even though it affected only their bodies and not their hearts.' (Ephesians 2:11) The ceremonial law only changed the exterior, but the Holy Spirit changes our heart.

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh (obedience to outward laws)? (Galatians 3:2-3 (http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29105/eVerseID/29105))

Paul then goes on to explain how Abraham was justified by faith and shows that the only way anyone can be justified is by faith.

You can't get much clearer than this Mr. drs.

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6

"...And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 1 John 5:6b

Revelation 2:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:29&version=NIV)
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.


Have a wonderful Monday,
Rick


Thanks, Rick, for your message.

It appears that you may actually believe that it is acceptable for you to NOT walk in obedience to the Torah. Am I right about this?

It appears that Friedman could answer your "I don't need to obey the Torah" position by showing that you are mistaken.

Friedman could say that your opposition to the Torah is equivalent to opposition to love, because the Torah is, most fundamentally, summarized as love for God and others (Mk. 12:28-31). Since Christians should not oppose love, it follows that Christians should not oppose obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could say: Following the Spirit is more than Spirit-less rule-following. But, following the Spirit entails that we grow in obedience to the Torah, because that's what the Spirit (who writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we may obey it) leads us to do. Thus, you have not justified your anti-Torah position.

You wrote: "Obedience to God by the inner reality of the Spirit cannot be reduced to a list of dos and don'ts."

Friedman could respond: That's a contradiction! After all, if we should do "obedience to God by the inner reality of the Spirit", then we just LISTED what you said we can not list.

You wrote: "Our once impersonal and distant relationship has become a personal, intimate relationship and an expression of love for God."

Friedman could respond: Love for God is manifested via obedience to His commands (1 Jn. 5:3). God's commands, of course, are contained in the Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3). Thus, life in the Spirit does not REPLACE Torah-obedience. Rather, the Spirit leads us to obey the Torah, because that is the proper expression of our love for God.

You wrote: "Christians have been set free to obey God by the Spirit as His laws are now written in their hearts."

Friedman could respond: Since the Torah is God's law written (by the Spirit) upon our hearts, we should obviously obey that Torah! After all, if something good is placed within our hearts, then we should OBEY it (cf. Dt. 30:14), not oppose it. Paul even quotes Dt. 30 favorably (Rom. 10:8), showing that confession and faith in Yeshua is an EXTENSION of our faithful obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could add: We love Yeshua because we love the Torah. We love the Torah because we love Yeshua. They go together, because Yeshua IS the Torah made flesh (Jn. 1:14), and the Torah COMMANDS us to obey Yeshua (Dt. 18:15-19), and Yeshua COMMANDS us to remain in His Torah-esteeming teachings. They go TOGETHER, so please stop trying to separate them. Your position is unbiblical.

You wrote: "For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:5)."

Friedman could respond: Yes, we are positionally righteous by faith (not works). But, we who are righteous by faith should perform WORKS (Eph. 2:10; Jas. 2:20) in keeping with repentance (Ac. 26:20), and repentance entails OBEDIENCE to Torah (Eze. 18:9,30).

Friedman could say: Yes, we should be led by the Spirit. And, we should obey the Torah because the Spirit writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we will obey (not oppose!) it.

You wrote: "The law is just a skin/epidermis (skin deep)."

Friedman could answer: No. The Torah is as important as our very life (Dt. 32:47).

You wrote: "You don't need faith to obey external laws."

Friedman could answer: But we are commanded to obey internal laws in faith. What internal law? The Torah! (Jer. 31:33). So, please stop trying to avoid your covenant obligation to grow in obedience to the Torah of Moses.

You wrote: " 'for whatever is not from faith is sin.' (Romans 14:23) 'It is impossible to please God without faith.' (Hebrews 11:6)."

Friedman could answer: Yes, indeed. That's why we obey the Torah in faith, just as Paul affirmed (Rom. 10:8, quoting Dt. 30:14).

Friedman could add: Remember, we follow in the footsteps of our father Abraham. Abraham was righteous by faith. But, Abraham also obeyed all requirements, commands, laws, and decrees which were in force at the time (Ge. 26:5). That is, faith and obedience should BOTH occur (Jas. 2:17).

Friedman could add: Your appeal to Hebrews 11 works against you. David was a hero of faith (Heb. 11:32) who esteemed (not opposed!) Torah (e.g., Ps. 1:2; Ps. 19:7-11) and routinely walked in obedience (not opposition!) to the commands (1 Ki. 15:5) of the Torah. Again, faith and Torah-obedience go TOGETHER.

You wrote: "The law is not of faith... Galatians 3:12."

Friedman could add: Yes, those who seek justification by faithless Torah-obedience (Gal. 5:4-6) are not of faith. But Paul never opposed FAITHFUL Torah-obedience. So Gal. 3:12 does not support your anti-Torah position.

Friedman could also add: Remember, there is works-righteousness (Lev. 18:5) and faith-righteousness (Dt. 30:14, quoted in Rom. 10:8). Both are Torah principles. Paul never taught Christians to oppose obedience to the Torah. Paul simply emphasized that faith-righteousness (not works-righteousness) leads to salvation. BUT WE NEED BOTH! We need faith AND works, not faith-less works.

You wrote: "The ceremonial law only changed the exterior, but the Holy Spirit changes our heart."

Friedman could answer: Yes, the Holy Spirit changes our hearts by writing the Torah upon our hearts so that we obey (not oppose!) it from the heart. Your comment supports my position.

Friedman could add: The Spirit is not opposed to ceremonial law. Indeed, God will again reinstitute ceremonial law in the future (Eze. 40-48; Zec. 14:16-21; Jer. 33:19-22, etc.). So, the Spirit does not oppose ceremonial law (which Paul (Ac. 21:26) and thousands of first-century converts (Ac. 21:20) participated in). Rather, the Spirit helps us to understand and apply spiritual principles to which the ceremonial law points.

You wrote: ""This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh (obedience to outward laws)? (Galatians 3:2-3)."

Friedman could answer: Of course, we receive the Spirit by faith (not works). And, the Spirit leads us to grow in obedience to the Torah, just as YHVH and Yeshua and the Prophets and Apostles command and teach.

Friedman could add: What spirit would want you to oppose YHVH, Yeshua, the Prophets, and the Apostles? The spirit of lawlessness? Remember, lawlessness (Gr. "anomia" or "anomos" or "anomian") leads to disastrous consequences for lawless religious people (Mt. 7:21-23) and for the lawless "weeds" who are among us (Mt. 13:40-42). I urge.....no, I beg you.....please change your position. I'm only trying to help you, because I care about you.

You wrote: 'Paul then goes on to explain how Abraham was justified by faith and shows that the only way anyone can be justified is by faith.
You can't get much clearer than this Mr. drs."

Friedman could answer: Yes, Abraham was justified by faith. But, Abraham ALSO obeyed all applicable requirements, decrees, commands, and laws (Ge. 26:5). So, your appeal to Abraham works against you. Abraham had faith AND works. We should too. And what kind of works? Works of obedience to the requirements, decrees, commands, and laws of the Torah of Moses, just as YHVH, Yeshua, the Prophets, and Apostles teach and command us.

Are we justified by works? Of course not. But we are still commanded to have works.

You wrote: ""But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6."

Friedman could answer: Sure, we are dead to (and delivered from) the curse of the Torah, because we have been raised in Yeshua in new life in the Spirit. But that's no excuse to oppose obedience to the Torah. We may now grow in obedience to the Torah as the faith-filled expression of our love for Him who commands us to walk in obedience to the Torah.

Friedman could add: Read the next verse! Rom. 7:7 confirms we should NOT sin. And, since sin is violation of the Torah (Is. 42:24; 1 Jn. 3:4), Paul is emphasizing, here, that we can not use "newness of the Spirit" as an excuse to oppose Torah-obedience. Remember, the Spirit writes the Torah upon our hearts so that we will obey (not oppose!) it.

You wrote: ""...And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 1 John 5:6b."

Friedman could respond: Then surely the Spirit will bear witness that we should obey God's COMMANDS (1 Jn. 5:3) which, of course, are contained in the Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).

You wrote: "Revelation 2:29 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Friedman could answer: Those with "ears to hear" will hear (Heb. "shema", Jer. 25:4) the words of YHVH (Jer. 25:8). So, yes indeed! Please HEAR the Spirit who says we should HEAR the words of YHVH.

And what words should we be careful to HEAR? Hear the commandments (Dt. 6:4-6). Keep the commands (Dt. 6:17).

Yes, our faith-righteousness is by faith, but our works of righteousness should be performed in obedience to this Torah of Moses (Dt. 6:25).

Please reconsider your position. Friedman could answer every objection you raise.

Why would you oppose YHVH? Oppose Yeshua? Oppose the prophets? Oppose the apostles?

best,
drs

heb13-13
01-16-2012, 11:56 AM
Hey there Rick,

Yes, it would be interesting to see how we both would answer those questions in five years. I know I would have answered very differntly five years ago!

I understand you intent, that you want to de-emphasize the "book" aspect of Christianity in favor of the "Christ" aspect. But in reality, Christianity is nothing but a "religion of the book" because any personal experience with "Christ" will be "all over the map" without the Bible ... or even with the Bible, as you well know! :p

So you idea that Christianity is "really" about Christ is fine as a personal opinion, but it has no foundation in any fact that I can see, since nobody has any evidence of the reality of Christ. It's a personal "faith thing" right?

You mean, you don't accept their evidence.


You assertion that "Because of Jesus Christ, man has been given the option of Life or Death." seems to directly contradict the doctrines of Election and Predestination. How do you deal with that?

Are you talking about Calvinism?


Also, you assertion that God "does not send any man to hell" seems to directly contradict many Scriptures. No person "sends themselves to hell." They are CAST into the Lake of Fire. It as an action by God because of his judgment upon the sinners. Trying to mollify it and say that people send themselves to hell directly contradicts the entire idea of a Sovereign God who exercises his sovereignty in judgment.

There is some truth there.


It is an error to suggest that God would have to "forcefully" override free will to redeem everyone. The vast majority of people who reject the faith do so because they are being honest about their beliefs.


Not what scripture says and how would you know?


If God is as generous as you suggest, then no man need fear being cast into hell, because God would never do that against their will!

He is very generous (John 3:16).


I like that! By your logic, we all get what we want! Free beer and hotdogs for eternity! It's gonna be a party ... or is that not what you meant to imply?

Great chatting,

Richard

Actually, by Kathryn's logic we all get free beer and hotdogs, regardless of our choices.

I guess we will have to disagree, too.

Yep, good talking to you,
Rick

drs
01-16-2012, 11:38 PM
Hi Richard,

It will be interesting to take that test again in 5 years (for both of us).

Hey, the reason that I say we are not the "people of the Book", is because Christendom has so elevated the Bible to the point of bibliolatry that I am just elevating Christ. That is all.

There is balance that has been lost between the written word and the Spirit.

Christendom has made Christianity a belief-system, right believing religion, right and wrong religion, do gooder religion, morality and ethics system. But Christianity is neither one of those. Christianity is Life in Christ. Christianity is Christ. This is what Christendom has lost and we see the abysmal fallout of the religionists eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Because of Jesus Christ, man has been given the option of Life or Death. Jesus has given us the option of Divine Life, not a set of rules or laws. The only law that the Christian is concerned with and applies to them is the "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". No other laws apply regarding his new life in Christ.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all may come to repentance and life in Jesus. (2 Peter 3:9)

He does not send any man to hell but He does respect the choosing creatures that He made us and if we choose toidentify with "the one having the power of death, the devil" (Heb 2:14), then He won't forcefully overturn that choice. There are only two alternatives: Everlasting Life or everlasting death and we choose to reside in perpetuity by our choice. The issue is life and death and Christ is Life, Christianity is Christ.

Take care,
Rick

Rom 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Rom 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Friendly Greetings Rick,

You wrote: "The only law that the Christian is concerned with and applies to them is the "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". No other laws apply regarding his new life in Christ."

My response: No. Yeshua pointed to our need to obey Torah commandments (Mk. 10:17-19).

Yeshua taught that the commands of God should not be broken (Mt. 15:3).

Yeshua appealed to the Torah, showing that it is applicable to Christians (Mt. 18:16).

Yeshua said that if you want to enter life, then OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS (Mt. 19:17).

Yeshua said that the love commandments in the Torah are the greatest (Mt. 22:36-39), implying the other Torah commands are not as great, but are still in force.

Yeshua urged obedience to the weightier AND lighter matters of the Torah (Mt. 23:23).

Yeshua sent scribes (Gr. "grammateus", i.e., teachers of the Torah) to teach others, proving that Christians should obey the Torah (Mt. 23:34).

Yeshua taught that lawlessness (Gr. "anomia") is bad (Mt. 23:28). Thus, Christians should do good (not bad) and obey (not disobey) the Torah.

Yeshua taught that we disciples are not greater than He, but we will be like Him when fully trained (Lk. 6:40). So, we should grow up into fully trained Torah-obedient disciples, just as Yeshua obeyed the Torah.

I could go on and on and on.

So, dear Rick, do you accept these words of the Messiah?

Do you choose to grow in obedience to the Torah as our Messiah teaches us?

best,
drs

Charisma
01-17-2012, 06:33 AM
Hi drs,

I don't have time to take on your whole post, but I'm wondering if you can help me out with a bit of 'Torah' knowledge? You quoted Mark 10. Here's the whole bit, then the question.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.


Where does it say in the Old Testament to 'sell whatsoever thou hast', in order to 'give to the poor'?


(A subsidiary question is, which of the ten commandments did Jesus not quote when he replied to the man?)


Many thanks. I look forward to your replies.

heb13-13
01-17-2012, 01:28 PM
Please reconsider your position. Friedman could answer every objection you raise.

best,
drs

Hey there drs,

I am sure Friedman (whoever he is) "could answer every objection I raise", unfortunately, he is not answering correctly. You're not going to get many more questions from me as I see that we are not getting anywhere fast but thanks for the civil conversation I learned a lot more about the Hebrew Roots Movement and the present move back to Judaism, which is not really Judaism at all. It's just another form of "mixture".

Rick

drs
01-17-2012, 07:47 PM
Hi drs,

I don't have time to take on your whole post, but I'm wondering if you can help me out with a bit of 'Torah' knowledge? You quoted Mark 10. Here's the whole bit, then the question.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.


Where does it say in the Old Testament to 'sell whatsoever thou hast', in order to 'give to the poor'?


(A subsidiary question is, which of the ten commandments did Jesus not quote when he replied to the man?)


Many thanks. I look forward to your replies.


Hello there.....thanks for asking.

You wrote: "Where does it say in the Old Testament to 'sell whatsoever thou hast', in order to 'give to the poor'? "

My response: Deuteronomy 18:15-19 commands us to obey the Prophet (who, of course, is Yeshua the Messiah). So, if the Messiah gives us a personally-directed command, then Dt. 18:15-19 proves that we should obey that command. Now, Yeshua specifically directed the rich man to sell what he had and give it to the poor. So, when the rich man refused to obey that personally-directed command, the rich man was violating Dt. 18:15-19.

You wrote: A subsidiary question is, which of the ten commandments did Jesus not quote when he replied to the man?

My response: Yeshua obviously did not quote the entire Torah to the rich man.

Does this prove that only portions of the Torah were in force at that time (or now) ? Of course not. Yeshua never claimed that His enumeration of the commands (in Mk. 10:19) was a complete listing of every Torah element in force.

Do we really think Yeshua condoned idolatry because it was not explicitly cited in Mk. 10:19? Of course not.

Now, why do you think it's OK for Christians to persist in ongoing violation of the Torah, when Yeshua and YHVH and the Apostles and Prophets all command/teach OBEDIENCE to the Torah?

best,
drs

Avivit K
12-11-2012, 01:04 AM
Hi all,
I just happened to be looking for some quotes I could use on a final paper I have to turn in this morning and since I own the book of which is seemingly of popular discussion here I was wondering if I could just throw somethings out there? There is a statement made that Peter never called Paul by his the Hebrew spelling of his name.... ? How do we know that? Because the scripture doesn't show it? C'mon guy the scriptures were interpreted so of course if Kepha called Paul, Sh'ual our regular KJV Bible's wouldn't show it any way. And once in a while it seems that people speak of Torah as if it's a different book, when it's the first 5 books of scripture and the Tanakh is the entire OT (as most would call it). They would've called one another by their names during that time. NOT by the english versions... am I understanding you correctly to say it is your opinion that Peter (Kepha) did not call Paul (Sh'ual)? Now I'm going to confuse myself...lol.

Anyway, I like the book you all are discussing. In fact I gave a copy of it to one of my professors because it's a common misconception that Paul preached that the law was done away with. AND besides, IF and I say this carefully, but IF Paul had said that in some way, whose word overrides the Law Giver himself? Right? I spent most of my life as a Southern Baptist until about 4 years ago when I walked into a synagogue. In 2009 I knew I was not to ever set foot in another church but that a synagogue was where I was suppose to be and there it is. Shalom

Richard Amiel McGough
12-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Hi all,
I just happened to be looking for some quotes I could use on a final paper I have to turn in this morning and since I own the book of which is seemingly of popular discussion here I was wondering if I could just throw somethings out there? There is a statement made that Peter never called Paul by his the Hebrew spelling of his name.... ? How do we know that? Because the scripture doesn't show it? C'mon guy the scriptures were interpreted so of course if Kepha called Paul, Sh'ual our regular KJV Bible's wouldn't show it any way. And once in a while it seems that people speak of Torah as if it's a different book, when it's the first 5 books of scripture and the Tanakh is the entire OT (as most would call it). They would've called one another by their names during that time. NOT by the english versions... am I understanding you correctly to say it is your opinion that Peter (Kepha) did not call Paul (Sh'ual)? Now I'm going to confuse myself...lol.

Anyway, I like the book you all are discussing. In fact I gave a copy of it to one of my professors because it's a common misconception that Paul preached that the law was done away with. AND besides, IF and I say this carefully, but IF Paul had said that in some way, whose word overrides the Law Giver himself? Right? I spent most of my life as a Southern Baptist until about 4 years ago when I walked into a synagogue. In 2009 I knew I was not to ever set foot in another church but that a synagogue was where I was suppose to be and there it is. Shalom


Hey there Avivit K, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

There seems to be a bit of confusion in your comment. The issue has nothing to do with the KJV or any legitimate English translation - we're talking about the original Greek manuscripts. In them, Paul called himself Paulos. Peter called him Paulos. And even Jesus called him Paulos. So there is no question that Paul went by that name after changing it from Shaul. We have no evidence that Peter or anyone called him Shaul after he changed his name. So the question is this: Why do some folks in the Hebrew Roots movement choose to contradict, and sometimes even change, the words of the Bible? When I was a Christian, I took the Bible very seriously as God's Word and this convinced me that there is a deep corruption in the Hebrew Roots movement.

It looks to me that the Hebrew Roots movement is trying to set itself apart as a new cult that is "in the know" while all traditional Christians are rejected as "pagans." They don't all do this but it is rather common in the movement. And in extreme cases they will actually change the words of the Bible which is, from a Bible believers perspective, a gross sin that shows they are enemies of Christ and God's Word.

Concerning Paul's position on the law: It seems to me that he was pretty clear on this point. A central law of the OT was circumcision. Paul said it was not necessary whereas the Law says that those who are not circumcised would be "cut off" from God's covenant people. Furthermore, Paul said that Christians were the true "Circumcision" (the technical biblical term for God's covenant people) whereas unbelieving Jews were not really Jews at all. This is another area of gross confusion that shows the Hebrew Roots folks are inventing their own religion contrary to Scripture.

I think you jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The Southern Baptists are one of the most corrupt group of Christians out there. I have a massive body of evidence that they willing lie through their teeth in the most egregious manner. This all came to my attention when Ergun Caner got caught pretending to be a terrorist trained in Turkey to "do that which was done on September 11." The truth is that he was a typical American kid raised in Ohio. He was promoted by the Southern Baptists and many evangelical Christian ministries and apologetic organizations. When he was proven to be a liar, they all covered up his lies, proving that they too were totally corrupt. You can read about it in my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/). This incident played an important role in helping free me from the shackles of Christianity. I began to see how fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of believers.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you if you are interested.

All the best,

Richard

drs
02-16-2013, 08:15 PM
Friendly Greetings Richard,

You wrote: "A central law of the OT was circumcision. Paul said it was not necessary whereas the Law says that those who are not circumcised would be "cut off" from God's covenant people."

My response: Paul taught obedience to God's commandments (1 Cor. 7:19) which, of course, are contained in the written law of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).

Paul opposed ADULT MALE GENTILE CONVERT circumcision because the law of Moses does not require it. Rather, the written law of Moses (i.e., Ex. 20 through Dt. 34) requires INFANT circumcision (Lev. 12:3) regardless of ethnicity.

And, the ONGOING MARK of Abrahamic circumcision is via INFANTS (Ge. 17:12), not via adult Gentile religious converts.

That's why Mosaic Torah upholds the circumcision commandment and applies it to INFANTS (Lev. 12:3), not adult Gentile religious converts.

Genesis 17 doesn't even address the question of whether adult Gentile religious converts should be circumcised.

This is why Paul can say adult Gentile convert circumcision is not required (1 Cor. 7:19-20) and, in the same breath, he can say that God's commands should be obeyed (even by Gentiles, 1 Cor. 7:19).

So, Paul taught Gentiles to grow in obedience to God's commands in the Torah. And, I see no reason to suppose that Torah requires ADULT MALE GENTILE CONVERTS to be circumcised.

You wrote: "This is another area of gross confusion that shows the Hebrew Roots folks are inventing their own religion contrary to Scripture."

My response: Yes, many in the Hebrew Roots reformation are full of errors. But not all. Solid researchers include: J.K. McKee and Tim Hegg. They stand far above most others, with quality research that deserves to be taken seriously.

Let's not discount the Scripturally-motivated Messianic/Hebraic Roots reformation by appealing to poorly analyzed passages, or by appealing to the goofy ideas embraced by the Messianic fringe.

We are not a new cult! Rather, we are simply RETURNING to full obedience to YHVH, recognizing that Dt. 30:1-8 has not yet been fulfilled.

We obey Torah because:

1. Jesus obeyed Torah, so we Christians should, too.

2. Jesus taught His disciples to obey Torah.

3. Jesus' disciples obeyed Torah.

4. Jesus' disciples taught others to obey Torah.

5. Jesus affirmed the ongoing force of the Prophets who command Torah-obedience.

6. Jesus affirmed the ongoing force of the Psalms which esteem Torah-obedience.

7. Jesus initiated the Torah-laden New Covenant in which we Christians participate.

8. Jesus warned of the great dangers of Torah-lessness.

9. The corporate church IS Israel. Since we Christians are grafted INTO Israel, we should obey Torah,
because Torah is not abolished for us Israelites.

10. We have no good objections to these Scripturally-confirmed facts.


We Christians must not ignore our obligation to grow in obedience to the Torah of the Torah-laden covenants in which we participate (e.g., Jer. 31).

That's why we must learn to love.....that's what it boils down to......but Biblical love requires Torah-obedience (1 Jn. 5:3; cf. 1 Ki. 2:3).

best,
drs

PS You should be thankful for the Hebrew Roots/Messianic Movement.....Mark Biltz's website (www.elshaddaiministries.us) has had a link to your website for quite awhile, and that website gets a couple million hits per month. I suspect some of that traffic has been sent your way, leading to purchases of your book.

Matthew 5:19
Matthew 7:21-23 (Gr. "anomia" is Torah-lessness)






Hey there Avivit K, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

There seems to be a bit of confusion in your comment. The issue has nothing to do with the KJV or any legitimate English translation - we're talking about the original Greek manuscripts. In them, Paul called himself Paulos. Peter called him Paulos. And even Jesus called him Paulos. So there is no question that Paul went by that name after changing it from Shaul. We have no evidence that Peter or anyone called him Shaul after he changed his name. So the question is this: Why do some folks in the Hebrew Roots movement choose to contradict, and sometimes even change, the words of the Bible? When I was a Christian, I took the Bible very seriously as God's Word and this convinced me that there is a deep corruption in the Hebrew Roots movement.

It looks to me that the Hebrew Roots movement is trying to set itself apart as a new cult that is "in the know" while all traditional Christians are rejected as "pagans." They don't all do this but it is rather common in the movement. And in extreme cases they will actually change the words of the Bible which is, from a Bible believers perspective, a gross sin that shows they are enemies of Christ and God's Word.

Concerning Paul's position on the law: It seems to me that he was pretty clear on this point. A central law of the OT was circumcision. Paul said it was not necessary whereas the Law says that those who are not circumcised would be "cut off" from God's covenant people. Furthermore, Paul said that Christians were the true "Circumcision" (the technical biblical term for God's covenant people) whereas unbelieving Jews were not really Jews at all. This is another area of gross confusion that shows the Hebrew Roots folks are inventing their own religion contrary to Scripture.

I think you jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The Southern Baptists are one of the most corrupt group of Christians out there. I have a massive body of evidence that they willing lie through their teeth in the most egregious manner. This all came to my attention when Ergun Caner got caught pretending to be a terrorist trained in Turkey to "do that which was done on September 11." The truth is that he was a typical American kid raised in Ohio. He was promoted by the Southern Baptists and many evangelical Christian ministries and apologetic organizations. When he was proven to be a liar, they all covered up his lies, proving that they too were totally corrupt. You can read about it in my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/). This incident played an important role in helping free me from the shackles of Christianity. I began to see how fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of believers.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you if you are interested.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2013, 11:14 PM
Friendly Greetings Richard,

You wrote: "A central law of the OT was circumcision. Paul said it was not necessary whereas the Law says that those who are not circumcised would be "cut off" from God's covenant people."

My response: Paul taught obedience to God's commandments (1 Cor. 7:19) which, of course, are contained in the written law of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).

Paul opposed ADULT MALE GENTILE CONVERT circumcision because the law of Moses does not require it. Rather, the written law of Moses (i.e., Ex. 20 through Dt. 34) requires INFANT circumcision (Lev. 12:3) regardless of ethnicity.

And, the ONGOING MARK of Abrahamic circumcision is via INFANTS (Ge. 17:12), not via adult Gentile religious converts.

That's why Mosaic Torah upholds the circumcision commandment and applies it to INFANTS (Lev. 12:3), not adult Gentile religious converts.

Genesis 17 doesn't even address the question of whether adult Gentile religious converts should be circumcised.

This is why Paul can say adult Gentile convert circumcision is not required (1 Cor. 7:19-20) and, in the same breath, he can say that God's commands should be obeyed (even by Gentiles, 1 Cor. 7:19).

So, Paul taught Gentiles to grow in obedience to God's commands in the Torah. And, I see no reason to suppose that Torah requires ADULT MALE GENTILE CONVERTS to be circumcised.

Hey there Drs, :yo:

Friendly greetings to you too!

I can't find any support in the Bible for your interpretation. It is true that children born into Israel were to be circumcised on the eighth day, but it is also true that all adult male converts also had to be circumcised. I get the impression you have been reading a bad translation like the KJV which translates "zakar" (male) as "male child." The word "child" is nowhere in the Hebrew text. Here is what the law actually states:
Genesis 17:9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
The law explicitly states that "an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people." Note also that Abraham, the "father of the faith," was an old man when God commanded him to be circumcised. This is confirmed by the command that adult male slaves must be circumcised before they could participate in passover:
Exodus 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.
This is, of course, the uniform tradition of the Jews. And it is the tradition that Paul followed when he took Timothy to be circumcised when he was an adult:
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
If only children were supposed to be circumcised, Paul never would have felt it important to circumcise Timothy. And neither would there have been a dispute about adult circumcision in Acts 15:
Acts 15:1 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
The Apostles believed the LAW OF MOSES taught that all adult males must be circumcised. This has been the tradition of the Jews from ancient times until today. Are you saying that the Jews don't understand their own religion? What about Paul? He said that an adult who was circumcised was obligated to keep the whole Torah!
Galatians 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
It seems to me that the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement must twist Scripture into preposterous pretzels to make their unbiblical doctrines stand.



We are not a new cult! Rather, we are simply RETURNING to full obedience to YHVH, recognizing that Dt. 30:1-8 has not yet been fulfilled.

We obey Torah because:

1. Jesus obeyed Torah, so we Christians should, too.

2. Jesus taught His disciples to obey Torah.

3. Jesus' disciples obeyed Torah.

4. Jesus' disciples taught others to obey Torah.

5. Jesus affirmed the ongoing force of the Prophets who command Torah-obedience.

6. Jesus affirmed the ongoing force of the Psalms which esteem Torah-obedience.

7. Jesus initiated the Torah-laden New Covenant in which we Christians participate.

8. Jesus warned of the great dangers of Torah-lessness.

9. The corporate church IS Israel. Since we Christians are grafted INTO Israel, we should obey Torah,
because Torah is not abolished for us Israelites.

10. We have no good objections to these Scripturally-confirmed facts.

Those reasons are fallacious. Here are the common Christian responses (which I think are valid from a Christian point of view):

1) Jesus had to live under the law because he had not fulfilled it yet. But now that he has, to seek to obey the law is a denial of his finished work. Case in point: Animal sacrifices. Christ was the final sacrifice.

2) Same as #1. They were still under the law.

3) Same as #1.

4) Same as #1.

5) No, he did not.

6) No, he did not.

7) No, he did not. Paul taught that believers are FREE from the "curse of the law." And Peter said it should not be put upon Gentiles because even the Jews couldn't bear it.

8) No, he did not. He warned of those who put the external law (Torah) above the "law" written in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

9) Finally! We agree one something, that the Church is Israel. And just as Paul said the law was passing away and Christians were free from it, so should all be.

10) There are no facts that support your position. The Law is the "First Covenant" that was finished and replaced with the New Covenant. That's what the Bible says in many places. For example:
Hebrews 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant (Torah) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not like the covenant (Torah) which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. 10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' For all shall know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more." 13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first (Torah) obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
It doesn't seem like it could be stated with more clarity. The Old Covenant ended with the death of Christ, the final sacrifice. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the central message of the NT, or so it seems to me.



We Christians must not ignore our obligation to grow in obedience to the Torah of the Torah-laden covenants in which we participate (e.g., Jer. 31).

That's why we must learn to love.....that's what it boils down to......but Biblical love requires Torah-obedience (1 Jn. 5:3; cf. 1 Ki. 2:3).

best,
drs

PS You should be thankful for the Hebrew Roots/Messianic Movement.....Mark Biltz's website (www.elshaddaiministries.us (http://www.elshaddaiministries.us)) has had a link to your website for quite awhile, and that website gets a couple million hits per month. I suspect some of that traffic has been sent your way, leading to purchases of your book.

Matthew 5:19
Matthew 7:21-23 (Gr. "anomia" is Torah-lessness)
Jeremiah was talking about the New Covenant which put an end to the Old Covenant of the Torah and all its bloody sacrifices that could never perfect anyone.

I'll check out that site as time permits.

"anomia" is not Torah-lessness. It is the rejection of God's New Covenant and being guided by the mind of the flesh (Torah) which cannot please God.

Great chatting!

Richard

drs
02-18-2013, 05:59 AM
Hello Richard,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed reading through them.

I see where you're coming from...but I'd like to share more information which, I submit, confirms my position, and disconfirms yours.

You wrote: "The law explicitly states that 'an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people.' "

My response: Yes, but note that the context refers to Abraham and his physical seed (Ge. 17:9), not to adult male Gentile religious converts who are NOT the physical seed of Abraham.

So yes, if you KNOW that you are of the PHYSICAL seed (Ge. 17:9) of Abraham, then Ge. 17:14 may be used to require that you be circumcised regardless of age (but preferably on the 8th day). However, I doubt anyone has reliable genealogical documentation proving physical Abrahamic descent, so this is a moot point.

You wrote: "Note also that Abraham, the 'father of the faith,' was an old man when God commanded him to be circumcised."

My response: Yes, but the ONGOING mark of circumcision is via INFANT (i.e., 8-day-old) circumcision (Ge. 17:12; Lev. 12:3), not adult circumcision. That's why Mosaic law (i.e., Ex. 20 through Dt. 34) applies circumcision to infants (Lev. 12:3), not adults. And, that's why Paul says obedience to God's commands (1 Cor. 7:19) does NOT require adult male Gentile convert circumcision (1 Cor. 7:20).

You wrote: "This is confirmed by the command that adult male slaves must be circumcised before they could participate in passover: Exodus 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 'This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.' "

My response: You have mistakenly assumed that the instructions in Ex. 12:43-48 apply to ALL Passovers at all times. But this is unjustified. You see, Ex. 12:43 says no FOREIGNER (Heb. "nechar") is permitted to eat the Passover, but Is. 56:6 says the foreigner (Heb. "nechar") CAN participate in the covenant (and, by implication, eat the Passover). So, since Ex. 12:43-48 clearly has requirements which apply only to the immediate context (and not to future Passovers), we can not use Ex. 12:43-48 to require that all Torah-obedient participants in Passover must be circumcised at all future Passovers.

My position is further confirmed by the fact that the ongoing Passover regulations in the written Torah of Moses (i.e., in Ex. 20 through Dt. 34) do NOT require adult male Gentile convert circumcision for the purpose of celebrating Passover.

My position is further confirmed by Torah-obedient Paul who instructs the Corinthians to celebrate the Passover (1 Cor. 5:7-8), even though many of the Corinthian believers are likely "foreigners". Again, this confirms that Torah-obedient uncircumcised adult male Gentile convert Passover participants need not be circumcised so as to celebrate the Passover.

You wrote: "And it is the tradition that Paul followed when he took Timothy to be circumcised when he was an adult: Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

My response: The stated reason for Paul's circumcision of Timothy is NOT obedience to Torah. Rather, the stated reason is for evangelistic expediency: "...because of the Jews".....not because of any Torah requirement.

You wrote: "If only children were supposed to be circumcised, Paul never would have felt it important to circumcise Timothy."

My response: Yes, sometimes evangelistic expediency (not any Torah requirement) renders it advantageous for missionaries to be circumcised.

You wrote: "The Apostles believed the LAW OF MOSES taught that all adult males must be circumcised."

My response: No, the law of Moses (i.e., Ex. 20 to Dt. 34) requires no such thing of adult male Gentile religious converts. And, I already showed that instructions in Ex. 12:43-48 have application to immediate context, and NOT future contexts. And, I already cited Torah-obedient Torah-teaching Paul who expects the foreigner-inclusive Corinthian congregation to celebrate Passover (1 Cor. 5:7-8), thereby confirming that Apostle Paul did NOT believe the law of Moses requires adult male Gentile convert circumcision.

Moreover, Ac. 15:5 refers to circumcision AND obedience to the law of Moses, implying that the alleged adult-male-Gentile-convert-circumcision requirement is NOT derived from the law of Moses. Why not simply refer to "obedience to the law of Moses" in Ac. 15:5? Why, instead, refer to circumcision AND obedience to the law of Moses in Ac. 15:5? Well, a way to answer this question is to again note that the law of Moses does NOT require adult male Gentile convert circumcision.

Acts 15 does not prove that Gentile believers should not grow in obedience to the law of Moses. Acts 15 DOES confirm that Torah-obedience AND circumcision are NOT required for Gentiles to be SAVED (Ac. 15:1,11). Note again: The context of Acts 15 is to determine requirements for proper identification of SAVED (Ac. 15:1,11) Gentiles. Can believers therefore ignore their obligation to grow in sanctifying obedience to Torah and infant circumcision requirements? Of course not...that's not the question being addressed in Acts 15.

You wrote: "Are you saying that the Jews don't understand their own religion?"

My response: Religious people (Jewish AND Christian) often use traditions to nullify the word of God (i.e., nullify the Torah). Yeshua (Jesus) noted this clearly in Mark 7:8,13. See also Mt. 7:21-23 where lawless religious people are sadly cast away. And, "anomia" DOES mean "lawless", i.e., without the law (Torah), or opposed to law (Torah). See: http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0458.html for details.

You wrote: "What about Paul? He said that an adult who was circumcised was obligated to keep the whole Torah! Galatians 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

My response: Careful....look at the context: Paul is addressing those "who are seeking to be justified by law".

So yes, an adult who is circumcised (for the purpose of seeking to be justified by law) is obligated to keep ALL the Torah, or else such an adult will fail to earn justification through faithless Torah-obedience.

But although faithless Torah-obedience is bad, it does NOT follow that FAITHFUL Torah-obedience is bad! After all, that's why Paul quotes Dt. 30:14 at Ro. 10:8! Dt. 30:14 is buried in the midst of a context which imposes fully Torah-obedient obligations. And Paul quotes this passage FAVORABLY!

So yes, faithless Torah-obedience is bad.
But, faithful Torah-obedience is Paul's message to ALL believers!

John agrees: 1 Jn. 5:3 says we should obey God's commands which, of course, are contained in the law of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).

Yeshua agrees: we should live by God's word (Mt. 4:4 quoting Dt. 8:3, referring to Torah).

Again, Yeshua says we should love God, quoting Dt. 6 where the context clearly confirms that love for God is shown through obedience to Torah.


You wrote: "It seems to me that the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement must twist Scripture into preposterous pretzels to make their unbiblical doctrines stand."

My response: No....rather, the Biblical circumcision data are very tricky, and a proper harmonization of those data with the Pauline data are difficult for most people to identify (cf. 2 Pe. 3:16).

You wrote: "Jesus had to live under the law because he had not fulfilled it yet. But now that he has, to seek to obey the law is a denial of his finished work."

My response: No...Mt. 5:18 clearly shows that Torah will pass away only AFTER heaven and earth pass away. And, heaven and earth are still here. So, Torah is still in force, not abolished.

Again: Mt. 5:19 shows that those who disobey Torah and teach others to do the same will be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven.

Again: Mt. 4:4 (quoting Dt. 8:3) confirms we should OBEY Torah.

Again: Mt. 13:49-50 shows the frightful consequences of lawlessness. So we better obey Torah!

Again: Lk. 6:40 shows that we disciples should imitate Yeshua's Torah-obedience.

Again: 1 Jn. 2:6 shows we should IMITATE Yeshua's Torah-obedient walk.

Again: 1 Pe. 1:15-16 applies Lev. 11 (Kashrut) to Christian believers. Lev. 11 is NOT abolished.

Let me press you: Why do you claim Torah-obedience is a denial of Christ's finished work?

You wrote: "Case in point: Animal sacrifices. Christ was the final sacrifice."

My response: No. The Messiah comes to RESTORE the covenant with Levi (Mal. 2-3).

And, the Davidic Covenant (complete with Levitical sacrifices) has NOT yet been fulfilled (Jer. 33).

And, Ezekiel's temple has NOT yet been built (Eze. 40-48), and there will be sacrifices there!

And, thousands of 1st-century believers were zealous for the law (Ac. 21:20) which, of course, includes
ceremonial sacrificial activity. So, there's obviously no problem participating in sacrificial activity
as a believer.

And, Dt. 30:1-8 has NOT yet been fulfilled. This guarantees a future restored tabernacle/temple complete
with sacrificial activity.

I could go on and on. Sure, Christ is the ultimate sacrifice to which the Levitical sacrificial system points.
But that doesn't prove that future sacrificial activity will not point back to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ.

You wrote: "5) No, he did not."

My response: Yes he did. Yeshua said the Prophets are NOT abolished (Mt. 5:17). And, the prophets maintain
that Torah is still applicable to us (e.g., Mal. 4:4). Thus, Yeshua's validation of the ongoing force of the Prophets
confirms that Torah is STILL applicable, according to the authority of Yeshua Himself.

You wrote: "6) No, he did not."

My response: Yes, He did! Yeshua clearly views the Psalms as Scripture (Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10-11; Lk. 24:44-45; Jn. 10:34-35; 13:18). And, Yeshua clearly confirms the authority of Scripture, including the authority of Psalms (Jn. 10:34-35).

So, since the Psalms overwhelmingly affirm the validity of Torah-obedience (e.g., Ps. 1; Ps. 19; Ps. 119; etc.), it follows that Yeshua accepts that Torah-obedience is proper for His disciples who should, of course, accept Yeshua's Scriptural interpretations as proper disciples.

Indeed, there's an entire Messianic ministry which emphasizes this reasoning as foundational (see: www.119ministries.com). We can't discount this ministry and this reasoning with an uninformed "no, he did not" response.

You wrote: "Paul taught that believers are FREE from the 'curse of the law.' "

My response: Sure, we are free from the CURSE of the law....but not free from the obligation to grow in obedience to the law itself! Don't confuse these two ideas.

Remember, Paul obeyed the Torah (Ac. 24:14; Ac. 28:17). And, Christians should imitate Paul (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 11:1; Php. 4:9). Thus, Christians should grow in obedience to the Torah.

You wrote: "And Peter said it [Torah] should not be put upon Gentiles because even the Jews couldn't bear it."

My response: No. The yoke which no one can bear (Ac. 15:10) is a yoke of circumcision (Ac. 15:1) AND Torah-obedience (Ac. 15:5) for the purpose of being SAVED (Ac. 15:1,11) by those works.

Yes, faithless Torah-obedience has never saved anyone. But does that justify rejection of FAITHFUL Torah-obedience in sanctification? Of course not....that's a completely different issue.

Moreoever, Peter APPLIED Lev. 11 to Christian believers (1 Pe. 1:15-16), thereby proving that Peter expected Christians to obey Torah.

You wrote: "8) No, he did not. He warned of those who put the external law (Torah) above the "law" written in the heart by the Holy Spirit."

My response: Yes, He did! Yeshua warned of the dangers of lawlessness in Mt. 7:21-23 and Mt. 13:47-50. Again, lawlessness is BAD (Mt. 24:12), so Torah-obedience must be good.

Again, Yeshua said we should repent (Mt. 4:17). But repentance implies Torah-obedience (Eze. 18:9,30-32). So, Yeshua expected His disciples to obey Torah.

Why do you say the Torah is "external" ? That's not Scripture! The Torah should be INTERNAL in our heart (Jer. 31:33) so that we will obey it (Dt. 30:14, which Paul favorably quotes, by the way).

And, the Spirit says that the law written upon our heart IS Torah (Heb. 10:15-16 quoting Jer. 31:33). If Jeremiah prophesied an abolition of Mosaic Torah, then he would be a false prophet! Since Jeremiah is NOT a false prophet, Jer. 31:33 does NOT refer to any different anti-Mosaic Torah.

You wrote: "9) Finally! We agree one something, that the Church is Israel."

My response: Then we Israelites should obey Mosaic Torah given to us (Mal. 4:4).

You wrote: "And just as Paul said the law was passing away and Christians were free from it, so should all be."

My response: No. Paul never said Christians are free to disobey Mosaic Law. Remember? Paul said sin is disobedience to the law (Rom. 3:20; Rom. 7:7). And Paul said we should NOT sin (Rom. 6:15). Thus, Paul taught that we should NOT sin in disobedience to the law. It follows that Paul taught that we should walk in obedience to the law.

Moreoever, Heb. 8:13 says that Mosaic Torah is near (Gr. "angus") to passing away. But that doesn't
mean it has already passed away. Remember, all of John's prophecy was also near (Gr. "angus", Rev. 22:10),
but 2000 years later it has still not yet all occurred! Thus, Heb. 8:13 does not abolish Torah for Christians.

Sure, the New Covenant is BETTER than the old covenant in many respects, but that doesn't prove Torah is abolished for Christians.

Sure, the New Covenant is unlike the old covenant.....because Mosaic Torah was widely rejected in the old covenant, but Mosaic Torah will be written upon our hearts and obeyed in the New Covenant!

It's a New Covenant, not new Torah. Remember: Dt. 30:1-8 is not yet fulfilled.

You wrote: "It doesn't seem like it could be stated with more clarity. The Old Covenant ended with the death of Christ, the final sacrifice. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the central message of the NT, or so it seems to me."

I already answered your incorrect inference from Heb. 8:13 (see above). And, if you wish to maintain your position, then you now have many considerations I have raised, throughout this post, which you must now address.

You wrote: "Jeremiah was talking about the New Covenant which put an end to the Old Covenant of the Torah and all its bloody sacrifices that could never perfect anyone."

My response: Sure, the sacrifices don't fully remove our sin or perfect us. But is sacrificial Torah now abolished? Not at all! For example, Zec. 14 is not yet fulfilled....and it guarantees a future GLOBAL participation in Sukkot (complete with sacrificial activity). Again, this is yet another consideration which your position has not taken into account.

You wrote: " 'anomia' is not Torah-lessness. It is the rejection of God's New Covenant and being guided by the mind of the flesh (Torah) which cannot please God.

My response: I already addressed your "anomia" comment (see above).

And, why do you say the mind of the flesh is Torah? Paul said the opposite!

Romans 8:7 says the mind of the flesh does not (and can not) subject itself to God's law.
So, the mind set on the Spirit must be OBEDIENT to God's law (the TORAH!).

Yet again, we find Paul upholding obedience to Torah.

Paul says the law is holy (Rom. 7:12). Should we act holy? Of course! So obey Torah.
Paul says it is righteous (Rom. 7:12). Should we perform righteous actions? Of course! So obey Torah.
Paul says it is good (Rom. 7:12). Should we do what is good? Of course! So obey Torah.

Clearly, we have much to discuss.

best,
drs



Hey there Drs, :yo:

Friendly greetings to you too!

I can't find any support in the Bible for your interpretation. It is true that children born into Israel were to be circumcised on the eighth day, but it is also true that all adult male converts also had to be circumcised. I get the impression you have been reading a bad translation like the KJV which translates "zakar" (male) as "male child." The word "child" is nowhere in the Hebrew text. Here is what the law actually states:
Genesis 17:9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

The law explicitly states that "an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people." Note also that Abraham, the "father of the faith," was an old man when God commanded him to be circumcised. This is confirmed by the command that adult male slaves must be circumcised before they could participate in passover:
Exodus 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.

This is, of course, the uniform tradition of the Jews. And it is the tradition that Paul followed when he took Timothy to be circumcised when he was an adult:
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
If only children were supposed to be circumcised, Paul never would have felt it important to circumcise Timothy. And neither would there have been a dispute about adult circumcision in Acts 15:
Acts 15:1 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
The Apostles believed the LAW OF MOSES taught that all adult males must be circumcised. This has been the tradition of the Jews from ancient times until today. Are you saying that the Jews don't understand their own religion? What about Paul? He said that an adult who was circumcised was obligated to keep the whole Torah!
Galatians 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
It seems to me that the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement must twist Scripture into preposterous pretzels to make their unbiblical doctrines stand.


Those reasons are fallacious. Here are the common Christian responses (which I think are valid from a Christian point of view):

1) Jesus had to live under the law because he had not fulfilled it yet. But now that he has, to seek to obey the law is a denial of his finished work. Case in point: Animal sacrifices. Christ was the final sacrifice.

2) Same as #1. They were still under the law.

3) Same as #1.

4) Same as #1.

5) No, he did not.

6) No, he did not.

7) No, he did not. Paul taught that believers are FREE from the "curse of the law." And Peter said it should not be put upon Gentiles because even the Jews couldn't bear it.

8) No, he did not. He warned of those who put the external law (Torah) above the "law" written in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

9) Finally! We agree one something, that the Church is Israel. And just as Paul said the law was passing away and Christians were free from it, so should all be.

10) There are no facts that support your position. The Law is the "First Covenant" that was finished and replaced with the New Covenant. That's what the Bible says in many places. For example:
Hebrews 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant (Torah) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not like the covenant (Torah) which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. 10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' For all shall know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more." 13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first (Torah) obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
It doesn't seem like it could be stated with more clarity. The Old Covenant ended with the death of Christ, the final sacrifice. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the central message of the NT, or so it seems to me.


Jeremiah was talking about the New Covenant which put an end to the Old Covenant of the Torah and all its bloody sacrifices that could never perfect anyone.

I'll check out that site as time permits.

"anomia" is not Torah-lessness. It is the rejection of God's New Covenant and being guided by the mind of the flesh (Torah) which cannot please God.

Great chatting!

Richard

Charisma
02-18-2013, 11:53 AM
Richard said,


It doesn't seem like it could be stated with more clarity. The Old Covenant ended with the death of Christ, the final sacrifice. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the central message of the NT, or so it seems to me.

For what it's worth, I agree with this statement. It's not that there is no law anymore, but that through the Spirit, it is internalised and the person is not only in mental agreement with it, but heart-state agreement with it, because the flesh is able to be subdued through the power of the death of Christ.

By the Holy Spirit, Christ is in the believer, living out His life as Paul expressed in Galatians 2:20, and John in 1 John 4:9, 12.

Romans 10: 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31.

1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. 1 John 5:21.

Romans 5:5 '... the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

The love of God is not only the love of God to us as individuals, but contains a power to reach out to others and care for them.

That's God's law working in us.

Timmy
02-18-2013, 03:54 PM
Hi Charis,
Richard said,

It doesn't seem like it could be stated with more clarity. The Old Covenant ended with the death of Christ, the final sacrifice. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the central message of the NT, or so it seems to me.
For what it's worth, I agree with this statement. It's not that there is no law anymore, but that through the Spirit, it is internalised and the person is not only in mental agreement with it, but heart-state agreement with it, because the flesh is able to be subdued through the power of the death of Christ. Oh my what a twisted weft we weave when the one strand warp gets out of place. The above comments can be proven faulty, and next we can focus on the misconceptions about your scripture references as time allows.

Know that Protestantism was and is an attempted-- not reconstruction, but--restructuring of (supposedly) the faithfulness in Ha'Mashiach YaHoShu(V)aH ben Yosef ben Dawid ben Avraham Avinu. The problem is the focus was NOT on what Yeshua said and did. Instead, it focused on what could be figured out what was wrong with indulgences, and it's foundation remained rooted in the HRCC. As is quipped, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

It was Martin Luther before the inquistion,--even as John Calvin affirmed the same,--who claimed to never have broken away from the Mother (Harlot of Harlots) Catholic Church.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump indeed, and this shall be judged, for "Judgement begins in the house of God."
[Consider also II Dibh're Hayyamim 7 in this regard as well, for the judgement and blessings are on this wise:
1st. My people;
and,
2nd. This land.]
Know in II 2 Thessalonians 2, those who do not love God's Truth, He sends them strong delusions to believe the lie and say more of the same.



Adoption into any family one learns to live by the example and the rules of the one who heads the household.
Is this any preacher or even apostle or Potentate that have taken this decree away from Yeshua?
And if not, then who of prima must we follow, listen to, and obey?

Is it Paul we shall fall or stand before: He who sits on the Bema seat to judge according to all we have done, this Judge of all the earth? (Berishith 18.25 / Yochanan 5.21-22 / II Corinthians 5.10)
Be careful little mouth what you say.
Do you think on that Day, Melki Yeshua shall say, "Why did you do what I did and commanded be done?"
Will He chide you asking, "Why couln't you have just obeyed name instead of me?"

I don't think so.

It is hard for those ingrained in traditions of men to see the Word of God to be much of any effect for them, having a form of godliness, yet denying it's power by disobedience (=faithlessness).

Whoever holds fast to Christ does as Christ did and commanded. Three times in Yochanan 14 He repeated that if you love Him, you will keep his commandments, and in Matthew 4 He quotes Torah, saying that MAN SHALL LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD. Back in chapter 5 of Yochanan he clarified that he does nothing that he does not see his Father do.

Consider Ephesians 2, in that all who are in Christ are adopted into the commonwealth of Israel and part of God's family. Finally, Ephesians 5.1. . .6.1:Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children...Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right(eous).



By the Holy Spirit, Christ is in the believer, living out His life as Paul expressed in Galatians 2:20, and John in 1 John 4:9, 12. YESHUA says in John 3 that a person is born again by water (the Word of God: YeshaYahu 55.1, 10-11 / Ephesians 5.25-26 / I Kepha 1.22-23) and the spirit (of the Lord). There is not one without the other...and in Hebrews, where YermiYahu 30 is quoted, it remains a future tense event, not present tense ( 8.10).

What say ye?


Timmy

drs
02-18-2013, 07:20 PM
Hello Charisma,

You wrote: "It's not that there is no law anymore, but that through the Spirit, it is internalised and the person is not only in mental agreement with it, but heart-state agreement with it, because the flesh is able to be subdued through the power of the death of Christ."

My response: Yes! But WHAT LAW is to be written upon our hearts? It is the Torah of Moses (Jer. 31:33). That's what most Christians don't realize.

We are commanded to grow in obedience to the Torah because we are included as Israelite participants in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel.

best,
drs

Charisma
02-18-2013, 07:39 PM
What say ye?

Hi Timmy,

Well on the face of it, you have said what you wanted to say, without actually addressing directly either what Richard said, or what I said. I chose to make a short post focusing on a few verses.

Do you have a disagreement with Paul's exposition of the operation of the faith of the Son of God through which the New Covenant came?

Have you ever really studied what he testifies, as well as what he teaches, and, tried to understand his relationship with the risen, ascended Saviour? I have compared his testimony/preaching/teaching with Peter's, and there isn't a cigarette paper between them.

Your comments about Protestantism don't seem relevant at all, although it is true that the Anglican church retained the trappings of the HRCC. Nevertheless, the original Westminster confession was far closer to the gospel of salvation, than the liturgy of the HRCC.

There is a radical difference in the Celtic tradition, where there is an expectation of the power of God to restore the image of God in man through the efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the implication in Roman tradition that the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient (Works must be added.) to make peace with God and even then, sinners are going to be paying for their sins long after they die.

Have you ever read any Calvin?


It is hard for those ingrained in traditions of men to see the Word of God to be much of any effect for them, having a form of godliness, yet denying it's power by disobedience (=faithlessness).

It is not my experience that the Word of God is of no effect. Quite the reverse. Perhaps, though, God's word has a different effect on one person, than it does on another, according to the purpose for which He sent it forth, seeing He is ever speaking and creating (faith) in those who hear Him?


YESHUA says in John 3 that a person is born again by water (the Word of God: YeshaYahu 55.1, 10-11 / Ephesians 5.25-26 / I Kepha 1.22-23) and the spirit (of the Lord). There is not one without the other...and in Hebrews, where YermiYahu 30 is quoted, it remains a future tense event, not present tense ( 8.10).

Why focus on what has not yet come to pass, when what has already come to pass (Pentecost), is a very significant fulfilment of prophecy? Or are you saying, indirectly, that the promises Jesus made in John 14:23 and John 17:20 - 26 are future, despite the given seal of the Holy Spirit?

What say you?

Charisma
02-19-2013, 03:54 PM
Hi drs,

Sorry I didn't see your reply, which was posted while I was replying to Timmy.

I've read it now. So, please tell me - when Paul said that Peter was 'living like a Gentile', what did he mean? Galatians 2:14.


Thanks.

heb13-13
02-19-2013, 04:58 PM
Hebrew Roots Movement – “Prove to Me That God Does Not Want Us to Keep ALL of His Word” (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hebrew-roots-movement-prove-to-me-that-god-does-not-want-us-to-keep-all-of-his-word/)Posted on December 2, 2011 by JGIG
Invited to participate on a couple of forums where Hebrew Roots folks have taken up residence, I’ve learned a lot. Following is a post I wrote earlier, and I thought that the readers here might find it to be helpful in their discussions with HR folks they know.
One thing I want you to notice is the nature of the title statement. If you frame it as a question (which it, in reality is), “Does not God want us to keep ALL of His Word?”, recognize that the question has no acceptable answer, much like the classic catch-22 query, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” All we can do in a case like that is to present the truths of the Gospel and who we are in Christ and our relationship to the Law because we are in Christ, pray pray pray and leave the rest to God.
Oh – one more thing: this is a bluntness alert. If you do not like straightforward bluntness, you might want to skip this one http://pic4ever.com/images/birgits_snill.gif .

Does God not want us to keep ALL of His Word??? (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hebrew-roots-movement-prove-to-me-that-god-does-not-want-us-to-keep-all-of-his-word/)From ‘whiteangel’ (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=3504185#post3504185):
As we enter the last days, things are gonna get pretty rough, I would rather being doing what the Bible teaches and not what man wants it to say. So help me out, please, prove to me that Yahweh does not expect us to keep ALL of his word. I know that Jesus fulfilled a part of the law with his death for our sins.
I gave my life to Jesus at the very young age of 6 (yes, I knew what I was doing), I was filled with the Holy spirit when I was 13. Haven’t always lived a great life but try and have asked for forgiveness for my sins almost nightly. This isn’t my question.

JGIG’s response (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=3504185#post3504185):
I wish I could give more attention to this, but simply do not have the time today.
To answer the bolded in red above, on a practical level, God allowed the Temple and the Levitical priesthood to pass. He has not allowed them to be rebuilt/re-established.

The New Temple is Christ and His Body:

John 2:19-22
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

1 Peter 2:4-5
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

And the sacrifices are now living ones:
Romans 12:1-2
1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Hebrews 13:15
15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

The Mosaic Covenant Law may not be picked apart as modern Torah folk do; they walk in either ignorance or rebellion to the Law as it is written and clothe themselves in Law when the Word says they are to clothe themselves in Christ:

Romans 13:8-14
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

If we were supposed to “put on the Law”, this would have been a really good place for God to tell us.
And if you are serious about the jots and tittles, are you out there working toward a new Temple and gathering up the Levitical priesthood?
If you offer sacrifices on an altar – you commit great heresy against the Cross and our God. Yet sacrifices are an inextricable part of the Law as it is written, and their absence is indeed proof that the Law is obsolete. God’s commandments? Not obsolete. His instructions to mankind throughout history have changed from time to time. The instructions to the Body of Christ are found in the epistles. Some of those things are found in Mosaic Covenant Law, some not; obviously the things God expects of His Body are not inclusive of Mosaic Covenant Law.

But you all go ahead and tell yourselves how since the heavens and the earth are still here so NONE of the jots and tittles have passed.
And then go on to DISOBEY and DISHONOR God and the completed work of Jesus Christ by playing ‘keep the Law’, and then go on to IGNORE major parts of the Law that you say you ‘keep’, also IGNORING the clear teachings of the apostles to the Body of Christ about the believer’s relationship to the Law in Christ.

The Law keeping community is a walking contradiction, people.

Romans 3:21-31
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Did you catch that? Not only justification, but also righteousness come through faith in Christ.

How do we uphold the Law?
By using it properly:
1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Who are you in Christ?
What does Romans 3 say?
Who does Timothy say that the Law is for?
Can we learn from the Law?
Yes.
Are we who are in Christ and clothed in Him and His righteousness bound to keep the Law?
No.
http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator-view.jpg?w=315&h=237 (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator-view.jpg)Nor is it possible, as God has removed vital components with which to keep it. There is a reason for that, and it is found in the completed work of Christ. To keep the Law, one cannot just play at it. It’s like Law ‘keepers’ are in a flight simulator, thinking they’re flying around, seeing the world from on high, when in reality they are putting themselves in a box of isolation and submitting themselves to these:

1 Timothy 1:3-7
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator.jpg?w=315&h=282 (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator.jpg)
Step out of the simulator and see the contraption that you have stepped into and have been deceived by. It is elaborate and it is fascinating, yet it is a counterfeit, and not at all what God has for the believer in Christ, nor can one who is in that box go out and actually DO what Christ did command: love God, love others, go out into all the world and preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Mosaic Covenant Law cannot do that. The Law of Christ can.
Love goes where Law cannot.

Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2013, 05:40 PM
Hey there my friend!

:icon_hello:

It's been a long time! Glad you stopped by to share your insights. I really enjoyed our discussions last year.


Hebrew Roots Movement – “Prove to Me That God Does Not Want Us to Keep ALL of His Word” (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hebrew-roots-movement-prove-to-me-that-god-does-not-want-us-to-keep-all-of-his-word/)

Posted on December 2, 2011 by JGIG
Invited to participate on a couple of forums where Hebrew Roots folks have taken up residence, I’ve learned a lot. Following is a post I wrote earlier, and I thought that the readers here might find it to be helpful in their discussions with HR folks they know.
One thing I want you to notice is the nature of the title statement. If you frame it as a question (which it, in reality is), “Does not God want us to keep ALL of His Word?”, recognize that the question has no acceptable answer, much like the classic catch-22 query, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” All we can do in a case like that is to present the truths of the Gospel and who we are in Christ and our relationship to the Law because we are in Christ, pray pray pray and leave the rest to God.
Oh – one more thing: this is a bluntness alert. If you do not like straightforward bluntness, you might want to skip this one http://pic4ever.com/images/birgits_snill.gif .

Does God not want us to keep ALL of His Word??? (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hebrew-roots-movement-prove-to-me-that-god-does-not-want-us-to-keep-all-of-his-word/)

From ‘whiteangel’ (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=3504185#post3504185):
As we enter the last days, things are gonna get pretty rough, I would rather being doing what the Bible teaches and not what man wants it to say. So help me out, please, prove to me that Yahweh does not expect us to keep ALL of his word. I know that Jesus fulfilled a part of the law with his death for our sins.
I gave my life to Jesus at the very young age of 6 (yes, I knew what I was doing), I was filled with the Holy spirit when I was 13. Haven’t always lived a great life but try and have asked for forgiveness for my sins almost nightly. This isn’t my question.

JGIG’s response (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=3504185#post3504185):
I wish I could give more attention to this, but simply do not have the time today.
To answer the bolded in red above, on a practical level, God allowed the Temple and the Levitical priesthood to pass. He has not allowed them to be rebuilt/re-established.


Excellent point. They simply asked a loaded question. That's a rhetorical technique that usually indicates a desire to prove a point not supported by the facts. If the truth were on their side, they wouldn't need to use deceptive tactics like that.



The New Temple is Christ and His Body:

John 2:19-22
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

<snip>

The Mosaic Covenant Law may not be picked apart as modern Torah folk do; they walk in either ignorance or rebellion to the Law as it is written and clothe themselves in Law when the Word says they are to clothe themselves in Christ:

Romans 13:8-14
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

If we were supposed to “put on the Law”, this would have been a really good place for God to tell us.

Again, those are good points Rick. The idea of "keeping Torah" seems entirely contrary to the primary teachings of the NT. It's like they are missing the whole point of Paul's teaching. Of course, some of them don't even try to hide this fact, and they reject Paul as a false apostle, while other more "moderate" HR folks just reject only the book of Hebrews. But all of them are forced to twist the Scripture to make their doctrines work. Of course, half of this problem is that the Bible does not appear to be logically coherent. Christ said that the Law would stand until "heaven and earth passed." So Christians must struggle mightily to figure out how to get out of that and make it cohere with Paul's teaching that believers no longer should seek to obey Torah.



And if you are serious about the jots and tittles, are you out there working toward a new Temple and gathering up the Levitical priesthood?

If you offer sacrifices on an altar – you commit great heresy against the Cross and our God. Yet sacrifices are an inextricable part of the Law as it is written, and their absence is indeed proof that the Law is obsolete. God’s commandments? Not obsolete. His instructions to mankind throughout history have changed from time to time. The instructions to the Body of Christ are found in the epistles. Some of those things are found in Mosaic Covenant Law, some not; obviously the things God expects of His Body are not inclusive of Mosaic Covenant Law.
You will note that drs believes the sacrifices will be reinstituted because they are mentioned in Zech 14. I always took that as evidence that that chapter must be figurative, like Levites in the Temple of Ezekiel 40-48.

From a Christian perspective, I agree that continuing in the Old Covenant with its bloody sacrifices would indeed be heresy against Christ.



But you all go ahead and tell yourselves how since the heavens and the earth are still here so NONE of the jots and tittles have passed.
And then go on to DISOBEY and DISHONOR God and the completed work of Jesus Christ by playing ‘keep the Law’, and then go on to IGNORE major parts of the Law that you say you ‘keep’, also IGNORING the clear teachings of the apostles to the Body of Christ about the believer’s relationship to the Law in Christ.

The Law keeping community is a walking contradiction, people.

Yep. It only shows how folks make up their own religion. This is true for all varieties of Christians in my estimation. Some less, some more. But really, everyone is "one their own" when it comes to choosing which variety of Christianity to follow.



so confidently affirm.http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator.jpg?w=315&h=282 (http://joyfullygrowingingrace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/flight-simulator.jpg)
Step out of the simulator and see the contraption that you have stepped into and have been deceived by. It is elaborate and it is fascinating, yet it is a counterfeit, and not at all what God has for the believer in Christ, nor can one who is in that box go out and actually DO what Christ did command: love God, love others, go out into all the world and preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Mosaic Covenant Law cannot do that. The Law of Christ can.
Love goes where Law cannot.
Nice visuals - but this brings us back to where our conversation left off last March 2012. Specifically, we were talking about how anyone is able to know if their religious beliefs are true since they are entirely subjective. Here's the relevant post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2939-The-Bible-is-not-a-Moral-Guidebook&p=42518#post42518):


Hey there Rick,

I appreciate and understand where you are coming from, but I still don't see how you can escape the fundamentally subjective nature of "religious conversion." On the contrary, the verses you cited actually emphasize its subjective nature. There's no way for a person to know if the "witness" within themselves is authentic or imaginary. Case in point: My faith experience every bit as authentic as any Christian who has ever walked this planet. Your assertion that "When one's spirit which is dead in trespasses and sins is now alive with the life of Jesus Christ, this is something that the imagination cannot concoct or sustain for a few years let alone 30" has no foundation in objective fact. I have no reason to doubt that a person could remain trapped in a false ideology that they interpret as "new life in Christ" for 30 years. On the contrary, I EXPECT people who have converted to a religion to stay in it - that's how religions work. They have strong social networks that strongly discourage free thought, doubt, questions, etc.

So I still think you have not answered the "big question" - How does a person discern whether or not they have a relationship with a real rather than imaginary Jesus?

All the best,

Richard

I reproduce it here for convenience. If you want to pick up where we left off, it would probably be a good idea to reply in that thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2939-The-Bible-is-not-a-Moral-Guidebook&p=42518#post42518).

I'm really glad you stopped by Rick. You're a very intelligent man and I really enjoyed our discourse.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2013, 05:53 PM
Hello Charisma,

You wrote: "It's not that there is no law anymore, but that through the Spirit, it is internalised and the person is not only in mental agreement with it, but heart-state agreement with it, because the flesh is able to be subdued through the power of the death of Christ."

My response: Yes! But WHAT LAW is to be written upon our hearts? It is the Torah of Moses (Jer. 31:33). That's what most Christians don't realize.

We are commanded to grow in obedience to the Torah because we are included as Israelite participants in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel.

best,
drs
The Torah of Moses is "written in the heart" of believers? Does that include this verse?

Deuteronomy 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

There are many things in the Torah of Moses that I would never want to be "written in my heart."

Charisma
02-19-2013, 07:49 PM
Hi Richard,

God is desires that our hearts be turned to Him exclusively. He regards any alien presence as dubious, if not adulterous. In the taking of the land, it was not until the fourth generation - David's generation - that Jebus, that rocky fortress - was taken... not by David, by one who wanted the special prize which he offered to whomever overcame it. Likewise, Christ overcame for a special prize - (also) a bride-to-be - and freed the stony heart from alien control, so that it could belong to the king. The pictures in scripture are endless!

Israel driving out her enemies with God's help, should communicate how seriously He takes the way mankind was warped by sin, as if the flood was not severe enough? We cannot get the impression that God's holiness is flexible. It is not flexible and it is not becoming flexible.

The spiritual principle is not going to go away. God has not changed His mind. He is looking for people to come into agreement with Him totally, so that He can bless them with all spiritual blessings. It was spiritual blessings He promised to Abraham. Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 2:6. Ideally, He wants their consent. More than that, He wants a co-operative relationship which enables both Him and us to be profoundly satisfied by one another's love.

Charles Wesley wrote a challenging hymn (http://www.scripturetruth.org/issues/songs/hymns/n/noneislikejeshurunsgod.html) based on the following words in Deuteronomy 33:

26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun,
who rideth upon the heaven in thy help,
and in his excellency on the sky.
27 The eternal God is thy refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms:
and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee;
and shall say, Destroy them.
28 Israel then shall dwell in safety alone:
the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine;
also his heavens shall drop down dew.
29 Happy art thou, O Israel:
who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord,
the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency!
and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee;
and thou shalt tread upon their high places.


There are plenty of other places in scripture where 'the man of sin' is to be slain, as he eventually was through Jesus' death. Isaiah 27:1

If the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus is not written in the heart, then the law of sin and death still has control.

Ps 27:1
02-19-2013, 07:58 PM
Hi Rick :icon_hello:,

Good to see you again. First Timmy, then me, then Charisma (sorry if I messed up the order), now you. I guess we're having a homecoming or reunion of sorts.:lol: Hope you plan on staying awhile. I enjoyed our conversations and value your input.


The Law keeping community is a walking contradiction, people.


Actually, Paul, at times, seems to be a "walking contradiction". Romans 6 -8 has confused a lot of people, myself included. And I'm still not sure exactly how he meant it to be understood. In ch 7 he gives the impression that he is still a slave to sin (in his flesh), but in ch 8 he implies victory. So which one is reality? Just a rhetorical question, no need to answer this tangent.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Here we see Paul acting as if the "law" is very much still in force.


1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

From simple Algebra we learned that if A=B and A = C, then B = C. Looking at the 3 above quotes from Paul, we see what is important: being a new creation who demonstrates love through faith which is also the keeping of the commandments of God. Is this supported elsewhere by scripture? Absolutely!

We also see that Paul makes a distinction between the ceremonial law and moral law. Only the 10 commandments were put inside the ark. The rest was on the side of the ark.

1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

It's amazing how this all keeps coming back to the sabbath. In the last century or so, people started questioning the validity of the false sabbath. The false and/or proud shepherds found themselves in a conundrum. So as not to lose their flock (and their status and all that goes with it) they pretty much threw out the baby with the bath water.:eek: So they said, " The law was done away with; nailed to the cross." (This was not the position of mainstream Christianity in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. It is basically from the 20th century on.) But now we have a new dilemma; rampant lawlessness, even in the church (see church sanctioning gay marriage, etc). What does John say about lawlessness (and even Paul).

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
NIV - 2Th 2:3 - Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness* is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
Footnote:
* Some manuscripts sin

Something to think about. Why did God put the 7th day sabbath in with the other 9 which are obviously still to be obeyed by Christians? Shouldn't He have put it in the ceremonial law which, in my opinion, WAS done away with at the cross?

Steve

David M
02-20-2013, 06:01 AM
Hi to all who are presently contributing to this thread. I have not read all 13 pages of posts, but having read the last couple of pages, I wll add the following comments about how I understand certain things.

Jesus by sacrificing himself paid the outstanding debt which the sacrfice of bulls and goats etc. could not pay. Israel broke the blood covenant which was made between them and God at Sinai. Jesus has renewed the covenant in his own blood. Jesus has not taken away the law (Torah) though in renewal of the covenant he has replaced the sacrificial and temple services of the Torah as a result of his own sacrifice. Today, followers of Jesus are expected to keep the commandments which are contained in the renewed covenant and which can be thought of as contained in the ten commandments or as Jesus summed them up; the two great commandments. That said, Jesus said not to do that which was taught by the Pharisees which were thei man-made commanments adding to the Torah. It was that rejection of the Pharisees and their commandments and his put down of the Pharisees when standing in the temple whichat lead the Pharisees to take immediate action and bring their conspiracy against him and so lead to his death two days later. Jesus deliberately signed his own death warrant and so bring about his death right on cue coinciding with the passover feast that they had been keeping and rehearsing up until Jesus the Messiah fulfilled the feast in every detail. We note how Jesus broke all the man-made commandments of the Pharisees and never once broke the commandments contained in the Torah.


Now for Richard's reply saying; "There are many things in the Torah of Moses that I would never want to be "written in my heart." and said in connection with Deuteronomy 7:1,2.

I do not read Deuteronomy 7 as a law to say we have licence to go and kill reprobates, because we see them as an abomination to God. That prerogative belongs to God and from what God says about what is an abomination to Him, we should understand why God has the right to kill those who are and abomination, reprobates who are by definition worthless and cast off. That should make us stop and think about ourselves and whether the things we think, say and do are in any way an abomination to God? If in doubt and our heart is right with God then we should continually seek for forgiveness to cover our mistakes People who are rightly classed as an abomination to God and who do not change their ways (repent), can only expect the death penalty from God whether that be sooner like when God cleansed the land or later as with us all when we die naturally .

As for God's people; the Children of Israel, God instructed them to kill the people living in the land in order to cleanse the land from pagan god worship and people who were reprobates. The Children of Israel when operating under direct command from God were held guiltless. It was not a license to continue the practice without God's instruction. The fact is that even though God had done most of the work and delivered these abominable people into their hand, they failed to keep God's instruction. The fact that they did not kill everyone and so cleanse the land from all these abominable people, the consequences came back to bite them. It was not a solution to prevent this ever happening again. We know already how fickle God's chosen race was and how easily they reverted to pagan god worship when Moses delayed to come down from the Mount. God's chosen race show just how fickle all humans are and fail to keep God's instructions. It is the same today. God's chosen race had they obeyed God and kept His commandments would have been a nation of kings and priests and ensamples to the rest of the world. They failed and so another people are destined to take their place when Jesus returns to rule the earth. This did not stop God continuing His plan to use the descendants of Abraham to fulfill God's promises to him and through the descendancy from Abraham through the kingly line of David bring forth His only begotten Son; the man Jesus. God's chosen race and all that was said would happen to them for being disobedient is proof that they are witnesses for God and what we are seeing today with the establishment of the nation of Israel is further proof of God's promises being fulfillled.

God gave the Children of Israel license to cleanse the land from all abominations and that did not give license to others to kill people who they regarded as abominable to God. Lessons should be learned from this and we should look to ourselves and so remove all abominations from our lives. When we fail to live up to the high calling that is expected of God's children and be perfect as Jesus was perfect and sinless, so we need to seek forgiveness. Once we have associated ourselves with Jesus then we can be assured that his covering covers our sins and Jesus is able to present us faultless before his Heavenly Father that will stand us in good stead for the day of resurrection.

Not only should we keep the commandements which are summed up by the two great commandments, but we should do as Jesus commanded and go out into the world and preach the Gospel and in so doing teach others to keep the commandments. I have been saddened lately by some who are on this forum that I regard as abominations; their words and disrespect for the Creator betray themselves. I respect their right to say what they like and ultimately God will be their judge. I expect they will get what they expect anyway. For those of us who love the truth of God's word and who are seeking better understanding then let us continue to help one another get to the truth.

Paul's writings to the Hebrews are based on his understanding of the Torah and as we know, Paul studied under Gamaliel and Paul would have been able to recite the Torah. He knew it off by heart. Paul writes much beyond the foundations of faith about things which might be hard to understand and yet those who dismiss Paul's writings do so as they do the other scriptures (including the Torah) and wrest them to their own destruction. It behoves us to understand Paul's writing and see that in no way does Paul contradict what is written in the scriptures. Paul understood the nature and role of the man Jesus perfectly. The same Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God and has been given the title of God and has been given all authority in Heaven and in earth. Jesus will return with power and authority and rule the earth in righteousness in the way that mankind has not done to date which accounts for all the mess the world is in. Man has proven beyond doubt that he is incapable of governing himself in such a way as to bring about peace. It is not helped by those people who do not seek peace and live ungodly lives. Jesus will restore the earth in which there will only be righteousness and God will be all and in all.

Whatever we believe, may we continue to live a life in which we are peace-makers and so be examples of the right way to live which is for the benefit of mankind and not merely for pleasing ourselves and giving ourselves license to do whatever we desire to gratify ourselves.


All the best

David

Timmy
02-20-2013, 03:36 PM
UNEDITEDUNEDITEDUNEDITEDUNEDITEDUNEDITED
I should go back to that post, edit translating the names (the meaning)of books to English and get more specific with references instead of just spouting off passages by book with usually only the chapter...my bad...and if not any Qs, ask and it can be provided (hopefully).

Thank you drs for completing what i failed to finish, re: Jer. 30-31
Where were you years back when God first opened my eye to my actual heritage in Yakov&Yisrael by Abba through Avraham Avinu?

Rick prayers of this family are for all here, and your own, and you have no idea how grateful i iz to see you here again...only if for however long time permits...but, there are expletives over one misnomer from (?either myself or you¿) not realizing ramifications of parabolic imagery contained in scripture, and then the questions for you at the very end of this post.

As well if you see anything wrong over any of my posts on this thread, have at it. You have already given me one thing treasured beyond belief, starting me on the road to understanding the full implications of generosity, and so, God continually blesses beyond measure, while the finances of many around me are, pardon the expression, continue spiraling to hell in a hand basket. Funny how that is not taught from behind the pulpits anywhere, but then again it really is not that funny at all.

Richard, howya' mate?
Tim Finnegan's awake to dance, and the peak? Well, wiff' me cod n' trowel, mud 'tween brick by brick it arises, aye?


Hi Steve, glad for your mathelogical input.

I have believed and lived the line of reasoning over the ten words in the ark and that transmitted through angels beside it...and i no longer buy into that line of reasoning you bring forth. I may be wrong. In this regard it is asked of you what you think about: As you know, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Remission is one thing and forgiveness another. On this wise, respectively, there is the shedding and there is the sprinkling. The shed blood was poured over the Mercy Seat of the Ark. The splattering was over the people and what was laid beside the Ark. Remission is toward salvation, but what is the splattering for?? This issue is referred to by both the writer of Hebrews and Peter specifically. The event is recorded around the very first Hag haShavuot, Festival of Weeks (aka Pentecost) when the Law was enacted, and of course in Leviticus. There are also mentions of it elsewhere. If you have time, me too, we might begin a thread about this and learn more. From the way Charis emphasizes this, she will probably have more than a few pages to write about it...

David, it is sooo good to see you freed up to to share in this thread too. This post was prepared over the past 16 hours as free time permitted.
[i wrote two responses already but appear to harsh to my daughter, so they were trashed...and this will be about as toned down as it gets...or nothing follows from here on out in this thread. Some of a small bit of things you posted are repeated from this perspective...probing. God bless you richly Brother.]

...Charisma?

Oh everyone just come over here for a minute, cause i have something for all of you:
:grouphug5:



Hi Timmy,

Well on the face of it, you have said what you wanted to say, without actually addressing directly either what Richard said, or what I said. I chose to make a short post focusing on a few verses.Howdy Charis?

All in good time the above can become directly responded to.

If it were not for more in this Acropolis adding to this whole conversation, i might have ignored both drs and your own posts, but after reading what Steve wrote, and scrolling back upon Richard's talk to Rick, then reading what Rick said, i read and reread little by little back and forth and back again, then starting a reponse to you, drs post was noted and read, yada yada yada.

A Celtic proverb that stuck in this brain--
because i do not know how or ever again try to dance like they do these days
--from near exactly ten years ago (give or take merely a day or two) came to mind, and a different course of action is being taken...this time. The issue currently discussed in this thread marks the tenth time this topic has been undertaken here.

It is not that those have not been a success, because unless i was booted out of whatever forum, or i enraged another,i spoke until all doubt was extricated. I am actuallyn looking for a sure swift way to halt the disagreement without what drs has had to do: going one by one, over each misunderstood scripture and provide an explanation for each little nitpicky point of each issue people bring up, and then there are always some who jump in midstream without reading previous posts and try to debate issues laid to rest, usually coming up with the self same arguments to boot.

10, 5, 2, and 1 have been noted to be repeatedly specific points in developing (gematric) synchronicities for me. 10 itself has perpetually marked the pending or appearing completion and conclusion of any matter for me even as 1 represents inception. Of late, ten has repeatedly been noted appearing again and again in many ways over issues of modus operandi here now.

It is hoped by that sign, the finality can become true for this topic of discussion. Why? For a bit more than six years, a book desired to be written can finally be done in this same way, clarifying what is and is not of any account from God's perspective.


The Celtic proverb is on this wise:

Never give a sword to a man who cannot dance.

The response as to why a roundabout reply to first comments above?

The answer over the post initiating your comments was an indirect allusion to what the two of you affirm in considering the potential end result of regarding someone other than God to be greater than God...in a way, it is an attempt to work from the end to the beginning. Reading what follows, you will see that everything that must be said will not yet be the face of it, but closer to it still.



Do you have a disagreement with Paul's exposition of the operation of the faith of the Son of God through which the New Covenant came?No. What is disagreed with are all the varied twisted interpretations of what Paul wrote which cause many to become unstable and double minded. Multitudes have slipped and fallen living through these deceptions.Paul did not intentionally do any differently than he taught, for if he did, he could be called out as the greatest of hypocrites.
Have you ever really studied what he testifies, as well as what he teaches, and, tried to understand his relationship with the risen, ascended Saviour? I have compared his testimony/preaching/teaching with Peter's, and there isn't a cigarette paper between them.THOUSANDS of hours have been, and shall probably continue to be spent in Paul's writings, both memorizing/meditating in them, and then more study.

Loosely and summarily, of his own words:
Before martyrdom, his relationship with Jesus ascended was that of one who had not attained sharing in the suffering and death of the Christ. He desired this toward being counted worthy to attain onto a like resurrection. His living relationship was that of "dulos"--->a slave who lives and breaths for his master. In obedience and imitation of his Master Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, his custom was to attend synagogue on Shabbat, teach, and hold fast in the same love for God and man as expressed through obedience to Torah revealed through Moshe from Elohim Echad V'hechakham.

For me, walking in relationship with God following Yahoshuvah is not any feeling nor some airy fairy dream or any vision. Those things come and go, whereas God's Word remains forever.

True growing faithful(ness) in stride with G_d is participatory learning all things he has provided in the scriptures onto life and godliness. Any (supposed) faith that does not affect our thoughts, words, and deeds is only phantasy. G_d has provided not only the measure of faith(fulness) declaring what is righteous, holy, and good detailed in the Torah, but the means to live this out through our identification with the attitude, thoughts, words, and deeds of 'Jesus Christ'.

We humans are the ones conflicted, deceived, unsure, continually making mistakes, and paying for resulting outward misconstroodled actions ultimately in our own physical deaths. We are the ones who try to divide and are compartmentalise stuff to hopefully gain a clearer knowledge of things... and ofttimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.

God is not divided. God is one. Nothing at any arbitrary point (where we assume differentiation) from scripture has ever negated anything of all God declares at any other point in scripture. From the first letter Bet(h) to the end of the last Amen in Yeshua's revelation of himself, it is an unfolding and revealing The One Beriyth of G_d possible only through Yeshua and also knowing Avi Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Adoneinu (Jesus and also knowing God and Father of Jesus).

You rightly say, " I have compared his [Paul's] testimony/preaching/teaching with Peter's, and there isn't a cigarette paper between them." Considering just those words, you owe the readers an explanation how you could have missed what Peter writes at the end of his second epistle.

Are you straying further off topic? Certainly you do not imply, "Well, i think Paul did not keep the Law, and Peter affirms Paul, so Jesus words are no longer completely true. Place faith in what i think Peter and Paul said because Jesus did not mean everything he said, and God even confirmed those apostles messages with signs and wonders."


Second Peter is all about what is to be done to remain walking the straight and narrow path: getting it right. After an instructional beginning nearly all of the remaining letter is warning against false prophets or following them and coming judgement. Last chapter of this epistle, he ends where he began, then gives a final additional warning in the same vein, recapping, and giving notice specifically about what Paul writes:


"Also, consider the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation,
just as our dear BROTHER PAUL HAS WRITTEN to you
according to the wisdom given to him.
He speaks about these things in all his letters
in which there are SOME MATTERS THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST THEM TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION,
AS THEY DO OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance,
BE ON YOUR GUARD,
SO THAT YOU ARE NOT LED/CARRIED AWAY
THROUGH THE ERROR OF LAWBREAKING PEOPLE
AND FALL FROM YOUR OWN STABILITY."
II Peter 3.15-17

Peter clarifies that misunderstanding people confuse and misinterpreted Paul's message. The result of this very perversion is to confuse other scriptures as well. Then he clarifies that because of following that convoluted message, one gets carried away into this type genre (of false teaching from false prophets). This in turn results in breaking God's Torah which is the pathway leading one to fall (into instability).

As Shlomo says, "There is nothing new under the sun."

What is intended by referring to Paul and Peter's messages being congruent?
Your comments about Protestantism don't seem relevant at all, although it is true that the Anglican church retained the trappings of the HRCC. Nevertheless, the original Westminster confession was far closer to the gospel of salvation, than the liturgy of the HRCC.Do you think it is not relevant to name a major source of error so others can avoid that error?

These are all hierarchies of men in the tradition of man.

Do you really think people much better off believing white lies instead of a 'real' one, a half truth over a bald faced lie?

Martin Luther banned the Torah as irrelevant, and went so far as to throw the book of James into the Rhine River.

Calvin's emphasis appears more to be toward God out of relation with man and not toward man relating to God on God's terms. He confuses the meanings of words like "election/elected" and "predestination/predestined" indicating in his writings God is so above and beyond man we really have no say-so about anything in life.

Both above views are one side of the coin called Protestantism. Armenians are merely the other side of this coin, thinking they can do what is assumed to be right because God has bound Himself to comply with us. Because of the humanist metathesis of these three basic man-made philosophies, the Hegelian Dialectic in effect has transmuted them into more than 1,500 demonations and even more fractals from them. To date, we are talking about an unknown number exceeding 10,000.

Protestantism is not the same faith as the church revealed in Acts and is way off compared to ”the faith once and for all [time] delivered" Jude's one chapter letter--mimcing Peter's second epistile--talks about.

Please now consider why Paul was earlier quoted from the King James Version translation, often touted as the very word of God--and where are the KJV bibles in languages such as Mandarin, Arabic, or Santali/Nepali/Sindi. The KJV was used by the Anglican's (as the only right interpretation) for centuries.

In terms of such an "accepted" tradition of man, it will be repeated that "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

I probably might never have it all together this side of eternity...NO, i know i won't, because that expedites ascension. There is no prescription from here to attend Synagogue or any other human plan to bring God down to our level either. I HATE RELIGION maybe too much(?), and experience the best ritual to be learning is how to make abstinence from habit a habit. It certainly opens a vast array of venues to pursue and makes for better relations with other people, no matter what they hold to be fact or not. In this, you can never know what to expect and always experience more than you expect.
(In the Tanakh we are told to fear humans is a trap and trusting in anything proceeding from men God declares cursed.
After Jesus gives the parable of the sower, he reveals how people do lose out on what the word sowed provides by throttling it with the "concerns over this life, being deceived by riches, and desires for other things." The word pictures for that explanation is of a rut in the ground developed so deep from traveling the same path over and over, that it can become impossible to get out of it. He also tells that all things that are not part of holding fast to God given words creates in us anxiety.
Paul gives an imperative along these lines in these words, "Be full of care about nothing" and rather "in everything, through worship and humble appeals let God know what is requested."
Jesus tells us to make searching after life in God's Kingdom our primary concern and everything needed will be supplied after this is done.)

Is "Far closer" close enough, C?

Jesus returns to Earth to reign as King, making all kingdoms on earth His dominion.
By the Word breathed from His mouth, he destroys all things against His rulership.
In every kingdom, there are designations for subjects to follow, and this is what Jeremiah 30-31 prophecies.
Melki Yeshua keeps the Torah of God.
What makes any person so superior to what the Christ, King Jesus Ha'Mashiach obeys Himself and expects of us? Why do so many assume they have a meal ticket to do whatever they "feel" is right: their right to deny God's good and righteous and holy Torah credibility in either this life or the one to come?

Anyone who says the Old Covenants is done away with has to twist a whole bunch of other scriptures that don't make sense otherwise. Further, they proclaim their ignorance as being without understanding about the parabolic imagery of scripture...quite akin to preterists and rapturists.
There is a radical difference in the Celtic tradition, where there is an expectation of the power of God to restore the image of God in man through the efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the implication in Roman tradition that the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient (Works must be added.) to make peace with God and even then, sinners are going to be paying for their sins long after they die.There is no point in scripture stating God ever took away the image he created in humans, and what everyone seems to be missing concerning what newnature is proclaiming. It is that Paul's message must be accepted is this: man no longer has to make peace with God because God has made peace with man by Jesus lifeblood offered for all things that exist over the whole face of this planet, even to it's core. If you do not accept this free gift, you will only be at enmity with God just like the sceptic, atheist, and satanist.

Please realise and admit to yourself you keep on chattering about traditions (of men), and in perpetuating myths and vain imaginings, God's word in those same areas falsified become ineffective for you or anyone else who perpetuates that rot?
Have you ever read any Calvin?Because i became too much for the public school teachers and educational administration to handle, dad placed me in a Christian Reformed Church parochail school. Part of required reading one year in Theology class consisted of reading all the works of Calvin...and write a report after completing each chapter or the length(s) of text(s) designated by the instructor.

It was pure unadulterated 5 point TULIP Calvinism, and i gave that teacher fits...and that was never the intention. I just wanted to know more than he would grapple with and asked too many questions to pull any grade higher than a 2.0. When he was my instructor.

Why?

It is hard for those ingrained in traditions of men to see the Word of God to be much of any effect for them, having a form of godliness, yet denying it's power by disobedience (=faithlessness).It is not my experience that the Word of God is of no effect. Quite the reverse. Perhaps, though, God's word has a different effect on one person, than it does on another, according to the purpose for which He sent it forth, seeing He is ever speaking and creating (faith) in those who hear Him?I did not say,"of no effect." If i mistated something or you misunderstood, there was no intention to direct thought into God's Word can ever be of no effect.

Every person will physically see physical results according to how and what they correctly believe and do according to what God expects and accordingly rewards. This is called grace. We do not deserve any of it, but God promises physical blessings for physical obedience none the less.

It is the legalist who picks and chooses what is as is not valid from scripture, then self-justif/condemn their own and others actions. In this attitude, they think they evaluate everyones worth. Paul writes this how he sees it, "comparing yourselves with yourselves." How can anyone think that this is anything other than the epitome of self-righteousness?

God makes it clear anyone who sins is a slave to sin, Jn. 8.34; and sin is going against Father God's Word for us to emulate. This way is revealed to be Torah/Instructions/Law breaking (I Jn. 3.1-10). Jesus Christ is our living example to follow and anyone who says "Jesus did not physically keep Torah perfectly and wholy, teaching others to do the same" or says "Jesus' Apostles (in any way) changed this gospel of the kingdom He proclaimed" is not walking in the light but advocating lies from the father of lies.

Whom or what you choose you will serve is both your father and master.

]YESHUA says in John 3 that a person is born again by water (the Word of God: YeshaYahu 55.1, 10-11 / Ephesians 5.25-26 / I Kepha 1.22-23) and the spirit (of the Lord). There is not one without the other...and in Hebrews, where YermiYahu 30 is quoted, it remains a future tense event, not present tense, (8.10).
Why focus on what has not yet come to pass when what has already come to pass (Pentecost), is a very significant fulfilment of prophecy? Or are you saying, indirectly, that the promises Jesus made in John 14:23 and John 17:20 - 26 are future, despite the given seal of the Holy Spirit?The Holy Spirit is the seal and not the metamorphosis still to come. I am not focusing on what has not yet physically occured--though the return of King Jesus to reign on earth is eagerly anticipated--as much as trying to assist you into noting how you observe things yourself, calling some things.as happened already but if this is all there is you can count me out.

BORN AGAIN:
"Born Again" as Jesus speaks about it in John 3 is future tense and has not yet happened.
The above instance of being born again is different than
"BEING [continuously] BORN AGAIN BY THE INCORRUPTIBLE SEED OF THE WORD OF GOD" Peter writes of, and can possibly happen now as Paul reveals how


in Romans 12.1-2:
Therefore, brothers by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.


and Philippians 1.27-2.8:
27 Just one thing: Live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come anid see you or am absent, I will hear about you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, working side by side for the faith that comes from the gospel, 28 not being frightened in any way by your opponents. This is a sign of destruction for them, but of your deliverance — and this is from God. 29 For it has been given to you on Christ’s behalf not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him, 30 having the same struggle that you saw I had and now hear that I have. 2:1 If then there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by thinking the same way, having the same love, sharing the same feelings, focusing on one goal. 3 Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. 4 Everyone should look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus...



6who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
as something to be used for His own advantage.
7 Instead He emptied Himself
by assuming the form of a slave,
taking on the likeness of men.
And when He had come as a man
in His external form,
8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient
to the point of death —
even to death on a cross.
~HCSB

Peter also admonishes is this way, telling us it is neccesary for us to desire the word of God just like a newborn baby (sincerely) craves milk.


What i want to ask is why all the emphasis about the spirit of holiness, when scripture shows and proves repeatedly that it is out from the Word of God His spirit comes to act, and not vice versa?

As for all of John 17, where the verbs are past tense, that has already occurred. The future tense verbs indicate--wherein the phrases they are found--this has not yet occurred. All the comditional verbs indicates their phrases in potentia, but have not yet occurred.

John 14.23 can be somewhat clarified by understand Jn 17 correctly, as well as knowing that this comforter (the Father in the Son in You) comes for our benefit just as Yahoshovah says, by keeping His commandments.
KEEP from the greek IS TO STAND FAST IN OBSERVANCE OF


Shalom Aleichim,

T


Hallo again Rick. You have heard mention of parabolic imagery. (Parabolic images are like the situations used in parables Jesus told. They are life situations common to the collective mindset of the people to whom the tale is told, as in this post if you read it. (it is kind of long.) If you will read through this post, there is one of these parabolics that alludes to my question to you. As well, in a prior post to Charis, there is one.specifically concerning being adopted as sons with its implications.

Now about the question. Your post speaks of the Law of Christ.
Would you please explain this as you umderstand it, in the following aspects, and more if you think of others:
--What does the title Christ means?
--What the Law of Christ actually entails--details and effectiveness?
--Who obeys this Law?
--How it is made valid for us?
--Who enforces it?
--What are the details and effects about this Laws opposition?

CAO!

Charisma
02-20-2013, 06:07 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thank you for the reply to my post. :yo: It will join the queue for a response. I need help with one sentence (at least, but we'll start with this one) because I really don't 'get' what you are saying here.


There is no point in scripture stating God ever took away the image he created in humans

It's the 'ever' which throws me, and I have no idea if you are saying that there is no likeness of God at all in fallen Adam and Eve.... or something else?

Timmy
02-20-2013, 06:53 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thank you for the reply to my post. :yo: It will join the queue for a response. I need help with one sentence (at least, but we'll start with this one) because I really don't 'get' what you are saying here.
There is no point in scripture stating God ever took away the image He created in humans.It's the 'ever' which throws me, and I have no idea if you are saying that there is no likeness of God at all in fallen Adam and Eve.... or something else?

Hi Charis,

You are welcome.
Your response is anticipated and appreciated.
Thank you.

In response to your Q, take the "ever" out.
IOW, God never removed His image He created in man.



Grow in the grace of God.
This grace is not what, but Whom?

Titus 2:
11 For the grace of God has appeared with salvation for all people,
12 instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts
and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age,
13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing
of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
14 He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness
and to cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession,
eager to do good works.
15 Say these things, and encourage and rebuke with all authority.
Let no one disregard you.


Shalom Aleichim,

Tim

Charisma
02-20-2013, 08:20 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Perhaps a few verses will suffice to elucidate my 'image of God in man' comment, upon which you commented.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.


2 Corinthians 3 '... If the ministration of death through the letters figured in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance (which glory nevertheless is done away) why shall not the ministration of the spirit be much more glorious? For if the ministering of condemnation be glorious: much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For no doubt that which was there glorified is not once glorified in respect of this exceeding glory. Then if that which is destroyed was glorious, much more shall that which remains, be glorious.

Seeing then that we have such trust, we use great boldness, and do not as Moses, which put a veil over his face that the children of Israel should not see for what purpose that served which is put away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day remains the same covering untaken away in the old testament when they read it, which in Christ is put away. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil hangs before their hearts. Nevertheless, when they turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. The Lord no doubt is a spirit. And where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed unto the same similitude (likeness), from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord.

Taken from 'a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1534 New Testament'. (I've taken out the 'eths')

I know it's a bit quirky, but he wonderfully conveys the end of 'the covenant of death'. (Or should that be, 'the covenant with death'?)

2 Cor 3:3 '... ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves not his brother abides in death. .

Ps 27:1
02-20-2013, 08:42 PM
....
Hi Steve, glad for your mathelogical input.

I have believed and lived the line of reasoning over the ten words in the ark and that transmitted through angels beside it...and i no longer buy into that line of reasoning you bring forth. I may be wrong. In this regard it is asked of you what you think about: As you know, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Remission is one thing and forgiveness another. On this wise, respectively, there is the shedding and there is the sprinkling. The shed blood was poured over the Mercy Seat of the Ark. The splattering was over the people and what was laid beside the Ark. Remission is toward salvation, but what is the splattering for?? This issue is referred to by both the writer of Hebrews and Peter specifically. The event is recorded around the very first Hag haShavuot, Festival of Weeks (aka Pentecost) when the Law was enacted, and of course in Leviticus. There are also mentions of it elsewhere. If you have time, me too, we might begin a thread about this and learn more. From the way Charis emphasizes this, she will probably have more than a few pages to write about it...


Hi Timmy!

Man, your posts are like 5 course meals and mine are like peanut butter jelly sandwiches. :lol: Could you please expound on your disagreement with me. I'm a simple person, so sometimes you have to write to me in simple plain English. I don't claim to have a corner on the truth, either.

Steve

Dreg Hunter
02-21-2013, 10:15 AM
Hi Timmy!

Man, your posts are like 5 course meals and mine are like peanut butter jelly sandwiches. :lol: Could you please expound on your disagreement with me. I'm a simple person, so sometimes you have to write to me in simple plain English. I don't claim to have a corner on the truth, either.

Steve

Yes, what Steve said! Wow. There's some beautiful wisdom floating around here. Thanks for sharing all. From the 5 course meals and peanut butter/jelly samiches, I hope to leave not a crumb undigested. That however looks to be quite a work. So, I'll just stick to lurking for now. You should all know I for one think each of you are awesome, simply awesome. People that care, what a concept!

Peace ~

Timmy
02-21-2013, 02:58 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Perhaps a few verses will suffice to elucidate my 'image of God in man' comment, upon which you commented.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. i told Dreg Hunter i'de get to that book ASAP, then it was seen he wrote here and his initial thread, and seeing You and Steve writing here as well, it was figured to cover this while i can before i am out and about with no connection "in the wilderness" (pdf time)

Your concept of the image of man does not negate the fact: God never took away the way he made humans, in his own image, which never was close to being as He is. (best picture might give what exactly IMAGEO DEO is ,can be compared to a little piece from a huge towering 200+ foot Redwood tree, like one little leaf, piece of bark, or twig from that tree...that piece is not the tree, but it is made in the image of the tree.)



2 Corinthians 3 '... If the ministration of death through the letters figured in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance (which glory nevertheless is done away) why shall not the ministration of the spirit be much more glorious? For if the ministering of condemnation be glorious: much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For no doubt that which was there glorified is not once glorified in respect of this exceeding glory. Then if that which is destroyed was glorious, much more shall that which remains, be glorious.

Seeing then that we have such trust, we use great boldness, and do not as Moses, which put a veil over his face that the children of Israel should not see for what purpose that served which is put away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day remains the same covering untaken away in the old testament when they read it, which in Christ is put away. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil hangs before their hearts. Nevertheless, when they turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. The Lord no doubt is a spirit. And where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed unto the same similitude (likeness), from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord. Is the Law the ministration of death, or is the curse from/of the Law???

Taken from 'a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1534 New Testament'. (I've taken out the 'eths')Please don't do that, as it usually is indicative of verb tense[/U]
I know it's a bit quirky, but he wonderfully conveys the end of 'the covenant of death'. (Or should that be, 'the covenant with death'?) with


2 Cor 3:3 '... ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves not his brother abides in death. .?yeah yeah¿

...and???

?????,

Timmy

Timmy
02-21-2013, 03:23 PM
Hi Timmy!

Man, your posts are like 5 course meals and mine are like peanut butter jelly sandwiches. :lol: Could you please expound on your disagreement with me. I'm a simple person, so sometimes you have to write to me in simple plain English. I don't claim to have a corner on the truth, either.

SteveOy Steve:icon_hello:

Apologies for the length.
I myself prefer PB&J ...and mayonnaise.
Try it. You'll like it.

I am not disagreeing per se.

Potential references were given so you could better explore Hag ha'Shavuot and what blood sprinkling is toward concerning the Torah through Moshe from Adonai Eloheinu.

Another point about that specifically, in relation to doing Mosaic Law, whoever participates reaps the principles in effect toward our benefits G_d promises in Dueteronomy. Note specifically 10.12 - 12.11.


Your brother, Brother:

Brother Timmy

Charisma
02-21-2013, 04:21 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thanks for the response again. :)

I like your tree picture, but you haven't really dealt with Genesis 5:1 - 3 - how man was made in God's likeness, but Adam reproduced his own likeness, not God's likeness. That is why the end of 2 Corinthians 3 has significance, as many other verses in the New Testament. We all agree (I suspect) that until the resurrection of our bodies, we will not be completely recreated. What kind of bodies do you think the people who are being raised to eternal condemnation, will have?


Taken from 'a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1534 New Testament'. (I've taken out the 'eths')
Please don't do that, as it usually is indicative of verb tense

It's the present tense. That's the way I left it.

Okay - covenant with death.


Is the Law the ministration of death, or is the curse from/of the Law???

Please let me think about that. On the face of it, I wouldn't say the curse was from the Law, either. I've been so soaked in New Covenant doctrine, that I've always been slightly unsure of how 'the curse' associated with 'the law' should be understood. Care to explain how you see it?

By the way, which Greek word would you give for 'the law' in that question? (Either one of or both 'the Law' that you mentioned, please.)

It doesn't say that the Law was the ministration of death. It says that the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation, was through the Law engraved on the stones... like the stony heart (with its deathly legalism), devoid of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

Lotus had an interesting explanation of how to understand 'image' from a Hebrew point of view, on her website. I should look for it again. It might etch a line between 'image' and 'likeness'. Do you have any thoughts on the difference?

How does your Redwood answer that question? I didn't 'get' it!



Afterthought: I forgot to ask... you mentioned the shed blood being poured over the mercy seat. Where does it say that, please?

Ps 27:1
02-21-2013, 06:19 PM
Hello brother Timmy :highfive:,


Oy Steve:icon_hello:

Apologies for the length.
I myself prefer PB&J ...and mayonnaise.
Try it. You'll like it.

Yuck! Jelly and mayonnaise:ill: :no::thumbsdown: I draw the line on experimenting.:D

from before


Hi Steve, glad for your mathelogical input.

I have believed and lived the line of reasoning over the ten words in the ark and that transmitted through angels beside it...and i no longer buy into that line of reasoning you bring forth.


I am not disagreeing per se.

:sCo_hmmthink:

Maybe the confusion originated with me.:lol: Let me clarify myself. Just because only the 10 commandments are in the ark doesn't mean I believe the other laws aren't important or not binding. I was differentiating between the moral law and the laws concerning rituals and sacrifices. Will do the research per recommendation.

Talk to you later, hermano,

Abuelo Esteban

Timmy
02-21-2013, 07:42 PM
Hi Charis,

Likeness is not image.
You mention you do not understand that at the end of your post, so study.
Forget the Redwood and ask the Queen of the South.

You say that the verbs are present tense, but which ones are present tense continuous?
Context and "eth"s make a big difference as to what is meant in any given passage.

Ok, not from or of, "through" is most appropriate. The blessing/curse manifests through/of/from/by the Law. No Law, no sin, no blessing, no curse--and vice versa.

Yes, stoney legalists are devoid the spirit through/of/from/by the Christ.

Maybe i do not understand temple service as well as you or even why the mercy seat, so you need to teach me. While you are at it, explain the horns of the altar and the blood service there as well as the difference between shedding, gathering, pouring, and splattering; what should be cleansed before and after, with what, how, and why. I'm sure more questions will come after that because i really am curious.

Shalom,

Timmy

ps. I would like to know the purpose and symbolism for each of those activities with those ordinances that are passing away so the telestai work of Yeshua can be more clearly related to the dailies.

Timmy
02-22-2013, 01:51 PM
Ola Charis:sombrero2:
And Abeulo Esteban

Charisma?
I've been told you have taken the previous response wrongly.

If you took offence, none was intended; though reading it now, it even sent me a swift sharp shock...and thoughts of Richard last night talking about a surgeon's scalpel with precision and bedside manners are apropriate thereafter...in this vein, the post above will be explained.

First though, with you, i have usually put up with pacing and leading you use, so it is completely out of character that i responded to you in the way i did. I am not right having done this. Please accept my apology: i am truly sorry.



Not to excuse my action, but for the sake of anyone reading along and possibly getting the wrong impression about Timmy, in the immortal words of Fire Marshall Bill,"Let me tell ya' something!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU7861MufFs&list=PL1446ADCD4A096F72)

Surgery is undeniably detailed and precise, though a muhadeen's flailing scimitar quickly cuts away opposition...and the surest swiftest means of permanently eliminating headaches is not with medication or meditation, but a chainsaw.

Although Leatherface manifested through previous words, benefit was the intent. None the less, i am not looking for excuses because there is not one. The intention of the above post was not to offend. Perhaps it appears out of character but it is not. The question for hermano mi abuelo was loaded bait, and you took it upon yourself to question what you have not yet chosen to even wrap your head around, much less obey.

I do not expect anybody to obey mitzvot because i say so; but, when somebody comes along and says G_d has changed his expectations for us through obedience found in Yeshua, especially with those who mean the most to me, there comes a time when the surgeon's scrubs come off, and the warrior's gear is donned. If that fails, overalls, leather gloves, and dungarees are usually sufficient protection wielding a chainsaw.

Thinking that wrong way leads to double mindedness and duplicity. Hypocrisy follows close on it's heels.

What was written remains as a quant reminder that i usually tire quickly of cat and mouse with most...though with you, i have been very patient...for how long? Two years, or to date is it longer?

You know what you are alluding to. So please just say it, and prove that point. If not, please quit with all the cut and paste without clear explanation and meaning.

Life is short this sojourn, so 'know' the Good, and G_d shall restore what the locust has eaten away.

The question to hermano mi abuelo was loaded bait, and that was the intent of the ending sarcasm. In splattering the blood over the assembly, the Law of Moshe, and the ark--as well as the Mercy Seat, this example shows us that G_d does not make exceptions, but includes all these things sprinkled and covered as part and parcel of ONE COVENANT. In Hebrews, it is the ordinances that are discussed as NOT done away with--
(like the majority says...and of course they are always right, right? See Mt. 7.12-27)
--but rather are in the process of fading away...like a shadow that disappears when there is no longer any place where light does not penetrate. The other 22 aspects that comprise the instructed Law of Torah, are still valid, though all of them have not been re instituted into effect as yet.

It is not a matter for us to choose and compartmentalise, distinguishing any Word that has ultimately proceeded from G_d. It is all one.

Neither can i, or you, or anybody else decide how others we are not responsible to/for might live out what G_d's dealings with them may be. Whoever or whatever is your master, through the same--in service to--one stands or falls. Nobody can be a slave to more than one master. You can serve yourself, G_d, objects, locales, things, sin, or the devil...but you are always a slave to somebody or something.

When we exhibit our identity through our actions in replication of Yeshua's example obeying what Eloheinu says do, we are walking in the light as He is in the light. Any other way is not "faith(fulness) above the Law."

So much more could be said about all of this, but i do not have much time...so mincing words ends now, and welcome to Tim Finnegan's Peak.

I really do love and care so much i might sit in that day with everyone here, at the feet of Rebbe Yahoshuvah ben Yaweh in His kingdom come to earth...even people here that i have not said a peep to yet, like oxbox and sylvius etc.

All of us have been given extremely great and precious promises in living by every word proceeding from the mouth of Adonai, onto taking part in the Divine nature. Do not sell out to other peoples opinions about what they think G_d no longer does. G_d is not an indian giver, nor a man that lies; but all his promises come from the end to the beginning in Him who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life: Jesus the Christ. It is all yes and amein.

The question remains, whom will you serve and in what ways?
With G_d, it has always been onto an all or nothing proposition.


Charis?

Finally, there are three things relative of two you remain impetuous about.

IMAGE1 (pattern) can be comparable to--but not completely accurate in analogy--the mold from which the object FORMed2 (shape) is extracted, and LIKENESS3 (similarity) is the different objects coming out from that initial image.

Shalom Aleichim one and all,
S
Timmy

Charisma
02-22-2013, 09:11 PM
Hi Timmy,

I did try to read your post before last, but I was very sleepy, and recall only the last bit. I really had not studied it, but I had the impression you were asking me to explain aspects of the symbolism in the sacrificial system. That's the way I read it. Is that not what you meant?

Your apology is fully received, :yes: and I am not aware of having taken offence. :no:

I am aware of having begun to wonder how long it would take to research sufficiently to be able to answer your questions, and also, to wonder why you are asking me, and not doing the research yourself? T Austin-Sparks frequently refers to the Tabernacle and the Temple as shadows, to elucidate an aspect of the New Covenant. He has a real gift for explaining things, and I'm sure they are in both his writings and audio expositions.

From post #131 on p14

The shed blood was poured over the Mercy Seat of the Ark. The splattering was over the people and what was laid beside the Ark. Remission is toward salvation, but what is the splattering for?? This issue is referred to by both the writer of Hebrews and Peter specifically. The event is recorded around the very first Hag haShavuot, Festival of Weeks (aka Pentecost) when the Law was enacted, and of course in Leviticus. There are also mentions of it elsewhere. If you have time, me too, we might begin a thread about this and learn more. From the way Charis emphasizes this, she will probably have more than a few pages to write about it...

I was a little surprised about 'more than a few pages to write about it', and also 'the shed blood was poured over the Mercy Seat of the Ark'.

Where do you find in scripture, that anything other than sprinkling of blood took place over the Ark of the Covenant?

I have, during the last couple of days, discovered 'entole' and 'logos' which were made of none effect by the traditions of men. I need to study entole (as I may have said) and try to tune in to the difference between it other forms of God's word/commands. (On asking the Lord for a lead in this, I think perhaps Romans 12 is stacked with entole, but I need to understand it better.) You offered Matt 7:7 - 12, and that's very helpful.

Now, with regard to 'cut and paste', I guess you're referring to scripture of which I have not given much explanation as I understand its relevance when posting. That's a bit like you offering many oblique allusions to how you see things, without offering scripture to elucidate them.

Gradually, I'm wondering if you think I am thinking things I'm not thinking, (and it's those things you think I should say), so your patience is still required, please. Hopefully, I'll continue to be a disappointment, and eventually you'll figure out what I haven't said very clearly, but you'll understand it anyway. :)

So, as it is nearly 2 am here, let me say that while I realise you may think I'm alluding to something I'm not saying, I quote scripture because it is so succinct, and usually cannot mean anything other than it says by the Spirit's interpretation. I do know that the carnal mind can find peculiar doctrines there, and miss the spiritual connections completely, resulting in interpretation/preaching which is as dead as a dodo; but, I am not going to go back tonight and try to regroup in prose what has already been laid out. What I would like to say, instead, is that the ONE COVENANT is the covenant with Abraham, as you have explained with reference to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, which Paul also expounds in Galatians. He also mentions aspects of this in Romans, and if Paul wrote Hebrews - or whoever did write Hebrews - it is there too. However, it was necessary that the New Covenant reach right back to God's promise to Eve, as well as right forward to include all who can be saved before Christ's return.

What only seems (to me and some others) to breed confusion, is what appears to be an endless emphasis on something to do with the Mosaic law. Now I could be wrong very easily, because I have no clear definition of the differences between aspects of the Mosaic law which some seem to make. Also, there was law before the Mosaic law, and Paul says the Mosaic law was 'added because of transgressions'. It seems to me that 'the law' we are/should be talking about, while it may have been re-iterated within aspects of the Mosaic law, was never confined within the Mosaic law. I hope my confusion is coming through loud and clear! To me, it is far easier to understand that Jesus did not break the Mosaic law or any other aspect of God's law, and when the Holy Spirit brings His leadership, teaching and example to the fore in our understanding, that we do know - or are prompted to understand in a new way - how we are supposed to live out His life, so that whatever we say (could be Jesus speaking), write (could be Jesus writing), think (could be Jesus thinking), where we go (could be Jesus going), pray (could be Jesus praying), worship (Psalm 22:22 could be Jesus worshipping) and so on.

Again I could be wrong in the following, but let me try to explain extremely briefly, how I see the New Covenant in relation to 'the Old Covenant', without taking away any of the power which was in the Old Covenant while it was in force, and please think about it. I'm not going to spell this out. I'm expecting you to be able to put it together. I hope that's okay, and if you don't see anything radically different from what you already know, that's great!

Here are some verses: Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22:8, 13, 14, 17, Joshua 3:16 ?from = as far as? see other ms, 2 Chronicles 3:1, Matthew 26:28, John 19:34, Acts 13:29 - 41, Romans 4:16, Romans 5:1,2, 5, Ephesians 1:6 -23, Galatians 3:14, Hebrews 9:14 15, Hebrews 11:10, 13 - 16, 2 Peter 3:13.

I have left out very many verses, and very much which could be said, so I hope the following skeleton is symmetrical enough for you to see the differences I am trying to point up. I am not ignoring truth I have not mentioned, I'm simply not mentioning it. If you don't know why I've chosen any of the verses listed above, I can probably say more of how I read them and why I chose them. Free free to suggest more.

The New Covenant is like an umbrella which reaches from Eden to the world to come. We know what went before it. We are less clear about the next world. The sprinkling of the book and the people, joined them together with God because they had promised to obey and His word/commandments/law. Sprinkling indicates agreement, peace and inclusion. It was important that the High Priest sprinkled where he was supposed to on the Day of Atonement. Move that thought into the New Covenant: the sacrifice is Christ, circumcision (without hands) is in the heart, and the joining is by one Spirit.

Before Christ, everything spiritual was physically demonstrated in external pictures - blood of animals covered their sins. God Himself was outside man, and tabernacled alongside man. Now, although the dominant thread inside is still spiritual, instead of tending us towards sin, it tends us towards righteousness. God (came in His own tabernacle (body), shed His blood and) dwells within a tabernacle made without hands (naos) in His body the Church, by His Holy Spirit, so powerfully cleansing souls from sin on the inside, that there is an expectation of an outworking of the resurrection life of God in man - the obedient heart and mind loving God and neighbour and the brethren, (not idols), in unpretended expression of His heart towards mankind. In other words, the internal state of the believer is expressed in outwardly visible ways.



Finally, I took a little time to :Investigate: how long we have known each other. :yo: It is, actually, three years in a few weeks. :tea:

You've been a great blessing. Thank you for the patience. We all need it in one form or another! :winking0001:



Added at 1530h GMT Saturday, 23rd February, 2013.

About the 'eths' I've been meaning to comment on your comment:


2 Corinthians 3 '... If the ministration of death through the letters figured in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance (which glory nevertheless is done away) why shall not the ministration of the spirit be much more glorious? For if the ministering of condemnation be glorious: much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For no doubt that which was there glorified is not once glorified in respect of this exceeding glory. Then if that which is destroyed was glorious, much more shall that which remains, be glorious.

Seeing then that we have such trust, we use great boldness, and do not as Moses, which put a veil over his face that the children of Israel should not see for what purpose that served which is put away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day remains the same covering untaken away in the old testament when they read it, which in Christ is put away. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil hangs before their hearts. Nevertheless, when they turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. The Lord no doubt is a spirit. And where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed unto the same similitude (likeness), from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord.

Taken from 'a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1534 New Testament'. (I've taken out the 'eths')

Please don't do that, as it usually is indicative of verb tense

The two 'eths' which I removed, were 'remaineth' and 'hangeth', which I left as 'remains' and 'hangs'. In these two cases, it seems to me that the context is 'For until this day', and 'But even unto this day,' are undoubtedly present continuous, while the veil remains. This 'present continuous' can be brought to an end at the time 'when they turn to the Lord', for then, 'the veil shall be taken away' - future conditional upon turning.

However, I will think carefully the next time I'd like to remove the 'eths' from a verse, just in case it also removes vital contextual information. Since 'eth' is always the present tense in English, I'm not sure how it could be confused with the present continuous, unless the context was not be-ing correctly interpreted by the reader.



Corrected for grammar and clarity.

Ps 27:1
02-23-2013, 10:16 AM
Hi Timmy,


I was a little surprised about 'more than a few pages to write about it', and also 'the shed blood was poured over the Mercy Seat of the Ark'.

Where do you find in scripture, that anything other than sprinkling of blood took place over the Ark of the Covenant?

Hi Charisma,

Long time no write. Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, and of course, I'll be speaking for myself and not Timmy. Maybe the above was a "slip of the tongue" or a "bait and switch trap" :eek: I, too, await his explanation.


What only seems (to me and some others) to breed confusion, is what appears to be an endless emphasis on something to do with the Mosaic law. Now I could be wrong very easily, because I have no clear definition of the differences between aspects of the Mosaic law which some seem to make. Also, there was law before the Mosaic law, and Paul says the Mosaic law was 'added because of transgressions'.

Maybe you could respond to my post to Rick (#129) since I'm not sure he will. It is obvious to me that Paul makes a distinction between types of law.


It seems to me that 'the law' we are/should be talking about, while it may have been re-iterated within aspects of the Mosaic law, was never confined within the Mosaic law. I hope my confusion is coming through loud and clear! .

And yet the sabbath was made (time was made holy) before sin entered the world. Do you understand my confusion when Christians say the 4th commanment (dealing with the 4th dimension) was done away with? What makes the 4th any less important/ less binding than the other 9? If God was to eliminate the sabbath, why put it where he did and why reinstate it in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65-66)?


The New Covenant is like an umbrella which reaches from Eden to the world to come. We know what went before it. We are less clear about the next world.

See above.


The sprinkling of the book and the people, joined them together with God because they had promised to obey and His word/commandments/law.

Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Exo 20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Exo 20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
Exo 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

The people didn't want to really "know" God. How do you truly trust/obey someone you don't really know?


Before Christ, everything spiritual was physically demonstrated in external pictures - blood of animals covered their sins. God Himself was outside man, and tabernacled alongside man. Now, although the dominant thread inside is still spiritual, instead of tending us towards sin, it tends us towards righteousness.

And what about righteousness?

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins (law breaking); and in him is no sin.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not( is not a law breaker): whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

My two cents :D,

Steve

Charisma
02-23-2013, 11:16 AM
Hi Steve, :yo:

I will try to see what you've written to Rick, but I may not understand it. I think I need to my own study on this, to begin to grasp what you all are talking about. Did you understand what I said about Jesus, and Him being in the believer by the Spirit, (to bring to individual understanding how they should proceed in everything they think, say, do etc) or do you simply not 'buy' that the Spirit brings the laws which governed Christ into the believer to be outworked?


Do you understand my confusion when Christians say the 4th commanment (dealing with the 4th dimension) was done away with?
I'm not sure 'time' was made 'holy'. The children of Israel were instructed to cease from their own labours. The extent of 'their own labours' were defined in detail and the penalty for non-compliance was death. God made not resting when instructed, a capital offence.

When Jesus came, and did things on the Sabbath which the religious leaders deemed 'work' - like eating from a field, or healing someone - and pointing out that the priesthood had a reprieve from the death penalty so that they could carry out other divine instructions, I read that as a clarification which is consistent with the New Covenant He was about to enact.

As I see it, the Mosaic law was an interim revelation of God's heart in regard to the right conduct of man's relationship with Him and man's relationships with man, and His intention to remove sin completely one day*, so that in that day* the 'work' of pleasing Him would come through the exercise of faith. This is why the writer to the Hebrews links rest and faith, and reminds us that all but two of the unbelieving Israelites became carcasses in the wilderness who could not enter into the 'promised land'. God made sure that they did not receive the promise.

Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest,

Is or is not the statement in verse 3, in the present tense?


[11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.]

This 'rest' is not about a future rest, according to the writer, although there is a future rest which we understand clearly from other passages.


Hamlet famously said, 'And the rest is silence', which has been co-opted to good effect by many a music teacher (!) but seriously, if we have been grafted into the death of Christ, have we not entered into His rest? If not, why not? Tyndale uses the word 'grafted' instead of 'planted'. It speaks volumes.

Isaiah 53:He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment:
and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Are we not supposed to be abiding in the true Vine, without whom we can 'do' nothing, 24/7? Isn't that enough 'sabbath' for anyone?


What I'm saying is, I believe I observe a whole lot more sabbath than someone observing the fourth commandment. And if you are partaking of the rest into which Messiah entered, why are you adding works to it?

This is a key in the ten commandments, because like the first, it is about our relationship with God, primarily. Through it is supposed to flow the light of the world, the life of 'the Lord our Righteousness' Jeremiah 23:6b, and the fruit of the Spirit by which it is unconscionable that any of the other ten commandments could be broken, apart from deliberate, avoidable sin. But... 1 John 2:1, 2. This is the effect of being joined by faith to the New Covenant, and relieved of all the works of the Old Covenant. Now we live in a raw reality with God, by His Spirit. If we want to.

Ps 27:1
02-23-2013, 06:09 PM
Hi again, Charisma,

This has been an interesting sabbath for me. Maybe I need to try a different approach. If a picture =1000 words, video =1000 posts, then this music video is priceless. Please watch before reading the rest of the post, which is probably superfluous at worst and "icing on the cake" at best.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HizyaGq9Ac

Something prompted me to click your hymn link in your sig. I'm not sure if I've heard it before. Nice melody. My parents were missionaries (met at Moody Bible Inst) and my dad played organ and piano at a professional level. He played for churches we attended. When we were on furlough in Michigan, my dad would play organ for the Wealthy St Baptist Church (large church and pipe organ). I grew up around music (was my first major in college), especially classical. Anyway, something again prompted me to check out a hymn from the website. "Redeemed" came to my mind and I saw it in classics. 1st choice. I got a chuckle out of the page number 301 in light of my post #31 herehttp://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3581-Was-the-Exodus-natural-or-supernatural-fact-or-fiction/page4 I was thinking of the other melody that the lyrics are sung to, so I went to youtube. I picked the first video I saw because it was 3:37 long. 337 is the English gematria for blue. Blue is the color of heaven and figures prominently in the law. Of all the videos I then skimmed through, I like this one best. I used our 4 hymnals we currently have (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, SDA) to check the lyrics. L and P don't have either song. B and SDA have both versions. SDA hymnal, Redeemed on pp 337 and 338. B hymnal, Redeemed on pp 444 and 446. Your last post was 52444. 444 is the English gematria of Levi (priests) and of course, half of 888, well known gematria of Jesus.

The view count on the video was on 2557 while I was watching it. It changed because I got offline and then went back to it. There is only one word that = 2557, "crucified". Before I forget and leave these "coincidences", the "Redeemed" song on the website you linked, gives a Hymn Code: 55555671512222123. I normally wouldn't pay attention to that, but all those 5's caught my attention.:lol: There are 17 numbers with 151 being in the exact center. 151 is the ordinal English gematria of "Jesus Christ" and "Holy Spirit". 151 is also the exact middle of 301. 301 is a menorah of 43's. You might want to check out 301 and 43 in RAM's database.


...
I'm not sure 'time' was made 'holy'.

A day is a unit of time. God made a specific day holy. Easy as 1(book),2(chapter),3(verse). Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it(made it holy NIV): because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


When Jesus came, and did things on the Sabbath which the religious leaders deemed 'work' - like eating from a field, or healing someone - and pointing out that the priesthood had a reprieve from the death penalty so that they could carry out other divine instructions, I read that as a clarification which is consistent with the New Covenant He was about to enact.

Jesus was simply "cleaning up" the sabbath and revealing its true purpose.


As I see it, the Mosaic law was an interim revelation of God's heart in regard to the right conduct of man's relationship with Him and man's relationships with man, and His intention to remove sin completely one day*, so that in that day* the 'work' of pleasing Him would come through the exercise of faith. This is why the writer to the Hebrews links rest and faith, and reminds us that all but two of the unbelieving Israelites became carcasses in the wilderness who could not enter into the 'promised land'. God made sure that they did not receive the promise.

Sabbath was before Moses and will be here in the new earth.



Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest,

Is or is not the statement in verse 3, in the present tense?

[11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.]

This 'rest' is not about a future rest, according to the writer, although there is a future rest which we understand clearly from other passages.


I'm not sure what is your point. The people didn't enter "rest" because they didn't trust and obey. Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? (NIV and others translate disobeyed). The sabbath is a picture of us resting in God's provision.



Are we not supposed to be abiding in the true Vine, without whom we can 'do' nothing, 24/7? Isn't that enough 'sabbath' for anyone?

What I'm saying is, I believe I observe a whole lot more sabbath than someone observing the fourth commandment. And if you are partaking of the rest into which Messiah entered, why are you adding works to it?

How is resting on the sabbath working?:lol: So let me get this straight. If I go out and work on the sabbath, I'm trusting God's provision, but if I rest on the sabbath, I'm working to add to God's provision. Can I use this "logic" with the other 9? If I tell the truth, am I "working" to get God's approval? Or is it maybe I want to tell the truth because God loved me enough to save me from a life of lying?



This is a key in the ten commandments, because like the first, it is about our relationship with God, primarily. Through it is supposed to flow the light of the world, the life of 'the Lord our Righteousness' Jeremiah 23:6b, and the fruit of the Spirit by which it is unconscionable that any of the other ten commandments could be broken, apart from deliberate, avoidable sin. But... 1 John 2:1, 2. This is the effect of being joined by faith to the New Covenant, and relieved of all the works of the Old Covenant. Now we live in a raw reality with God, by His Spirit. If we want to.

Are you sure you're understanding Hebrews correctly?

Hbr 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
Hbr 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Hbr 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

But what is this new covenant? Is it getting rid of or ignoring laws? Yes and no.

Hbr 8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people .

Nope. Law magnified by being in our hearts and minds.

Hbr 10:17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."
Hbr 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Hbr 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning(law breaking) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice (old covenant provisions) for sins is left,

Yup. The sacrificial laws were done away with.

And now for the cherry on top of this sundae:lol: (There could be a pun in here somewhere.:D) The page number of your hymn link is 177. The last word that = 177 is kill or "take away" in Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. :eek::eek:

Time for me to quit rambling. If my words confuse you, then just go with the video. That expresses my heart and I'm sure yours, too.:thumb:

YBIC,
Steve

edit to add "ordinal" in 151 is the "ordinal" English gematria .....

Ps 27:1
02-25-2013, 08:55 PM
Redemption Continued,

For a taste of heaven, put on some good headphones, crank up the volume, and wait for the shivers and goose bumps to tickle your skin. And for an encore, listen to the next on the list, Beethoven's Hallelujah (you may have to open it in youtube). I remember that from my dad's collection. The MTC sure can sing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKpkrqBwNs&list=PLXPFet_zDHirNWQ12HkFwD91pgZhf14Rs

So what does the above song have to do with torah? I'll explain in a moment, but first look at the length. 6:13 If you (anyone reading) don't already know, http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_613.php

So sabbath I was researching Fanny Crosby and the Redeemed hymn. I already knew she was blind and wrote a lot of hymns. I did not know it was over 9000 and that she had a lot of the bible memorized! Anyway, very fascinating woman. The original Redeemed hymn written in 1882 had 5 verses. I found this website that has page scans of old hymnals. http://www.hymnary.org/text/redeemed_how_i_love_to_proclaim_it The reason I checked is that the newer hymnals leave out verses and even Charisma's linked website changes the word "law" in verse 4 to "way".:eek: Now why would they do that?:D

This is what verse 4 (hmmm, 4th commandment, 4th dimension)should look like:

4 I know I shall see in His beauty
The King in whose law I delight;
Who lovingly guardeth my footsteps
And giveth me songs in the night.[Chorus]

In the youtube video in my previous post, the singer puts this verse 2nd which synchronizes "I know" at 1:19. Psalm 119 is thee psalm about love for God's law. Psa 119:77 Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight. Psa 119:174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.

I remember as a child singing Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. as a song in Baptist churches.

The writer of Psalm119 seems to be self righteous, but he asks for "understanding", "unfailing love", "salvation", "not letting him stray",etc., and then at the very end he says:

Psa 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

The psalmist knows he isn't going to be "saved" because of his good works, because he admits to "straying" like sheep. What he does have is a hunger for God's righteousness (Christ is the law in flesh, if you will). This agrees with Matt 5: 3-12.

And now you know what "Come Thou Fount" has to do with torah. We all prone to wander like sheep, but do we ask God to take our heart and seal it?

Blessings,
Steve

Timmy
02-26-2013, 10:50 AM
​The clincher concerning Torah itself and it's validity FOR ALL who claim they follow Jesus is possessing His own attitude, actions, and teachings as if they are our own, because this is what every truly faithful and obedient disciple of His does.

Ask yourself what the reason is for Him to offer up to G_d His life blood for the world in the first place. Then consider everything this entails. Did the death and resurrection of Jesus make obeying G_d's instructions--Ha'Torah--completely invalid or did it confirm their efficacy?

Though it is not hard to understand how folks can and do confuse Paul's message...to take the book of Hebrews, where these issues are spelled out in detail, makes one wonder how missed the complete gospel message is.





There has been a passage brought up Steve has been addressing to which is offered two cents from this quarter.

From Hebrews 3.7 to 4.11, the writer(s) argue that only G_d's people enter His rest. This passage reveals it is because of not believing, proven through disobedience, that people do not and cannot enter into His rest. In chapter 4, verses 9 through 11, the conclusion of this argument identifies exactly what type of rest is being discussed, and warns for the last time that this is to be lived out to avoid falling by disobedience.

Many English rendering from the Greek in verse 9, only say something like, "So there abides/remains a REST for God's people." In Greek, that word ”REST” located right there is "sabbatismo" meaning to ”observe G_d's Shabbat.” What verse 9 is actually telling us is Sabbath rest continues to exist for those who are people of G_d.






Finally, often many are heard drawing distinctions between the ten commandments,
--but there are really eleven commandments, beginning with the first word of the Shema: "HEAR!!!!!"--
the civil rules, the health laws, the temple ordinances, and so on.

Hebrews is discussing the metathesis<--transforming of the premise--of Beriyth, and not the complete abolishment of temple ordinances. Anti-type is manifested reality in Jesus Christ, and its shadow on earth--the type--will eventually be represented on Earth from out of Himself, as in G_d there is no darkness at all, nor shifting turning shadow.




This drawing of differences between Mosaic Law and the 11 commandments needs to altogether quit completely.

Where does the Bible say the 11 commandments are not Mosaic Law?

Are we missing the point of Torah,
by yet another tradition of man leading to unbelief?
Through disobedience the Word of God is made ineffective
in our own lives making up lies
toward self-justifications to compensate
for doubting G_d and ourselves.




Sonoriously,

Barefeeteded Timmy

duxrow
02-26-2013, 12:36 PM
Putting two and two together is what we all like to do,
To some the answer's four, and to others twenty-two.
The acrostic number 22 is somewhat like a veil,
When letters of the alphabet are used to tell the tale.
Hidden things in Scripture compare to finding Gold!
Searching out the ton of ways that Heaven's Truth is told...

My own favorite:
"Great peace have they which love thy law, and nothing shall offend them". Ps119:165 KJV

So many good verses in the octostrophic psalm -- 22x8,
Compare to Lamentations chapter 3 -- 22x3
Also, Jacob (means supplanter) is the 22nd generation from Adam. :yo: