Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 149
  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12

    NO OTHER LAWS?

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    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

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    776
    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.
    16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

    Ephesians 3

  3. #113
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by drs View Post
    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

    There is no other book like the Bible in the world where you have to know the Author to understand the book. If Christianity were the religion of the Book then it would be no different than any other religion in the world. But, Christianity is Christ! It is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man.

    Answering the Skeptics Bible

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12

    Thanks for asking...

    Quote Originally Posted by Charisma View Post
    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

  5. #115
    Avivit K Guest

    Lightbulb Just a thought from a Believing Jewish woman

    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

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Avivit K View Post
    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,

    Welcome to our forum!



    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. 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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12

    Paul, Torah, and Circumcision

    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)





    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Avivit K,

    Welcome to our forum!



    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. 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

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by drs View Post
    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,

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by drs View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by drs View Post
    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)
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12

    Circumcision, Torah, New Covenant

    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Drs,

    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

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    776
    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.
    Last edited by Charisma; 02-18-2013 at 06:53 PM.
    16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

    Ephesians 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •