Will we be punished if we do not keep Mosaic Law?
psalmsmith
the feasts and the law. Additionally, some persons have taken it upon
themselves to mischaracterize my position, which may add to the
confusion. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to clarify
some issues in regards to my position on the law and the feasts.
************************************************************************
*** Are the feasts and the law a 'Jewish' thing?
************************************************************************
No. The feasts and the law are a revelation of God and Messiah. The
law reveals the nature of God, and the feasts describe in exquisie
detail who Messiah is and what He does. Insomuch as God is the God of
the whole world, likewise, the law reveals the nature of God unto the
whole world. Inasmuch as the Messiah is the Messiah for the whole
world, the feasts reveal for the whole world who Messiah is, and what He
does.
If we say that God and messiah are only for the Jews, we might also say
that the feasts and the law are only for the Jews. But because God and
messiah are for the whole world, then that which reveals God and Messiah
is also for the whole world.
************************************************************************
*** Do we have to keep the feasts and obey the law to be saved?
************************************************************************
No. Messiah taught in Matthew 5 not only that not one yud or vav should
be removed from the law until heaven and earth had passed away, but that
there would be a distinction amongst the saved from those who kept the
law and those who rejected it.
Matthew 5:17-19 (Contemporary English Version)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society
[17] Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law
and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to
give them their full meaning. [18] Heaven and earth may
disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma
will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must
happen. [19] If you reject even the least important command in
the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least
important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and
teach others its commands, you will have an important place in
the kingdom.
Messiah did not come to do away with the Law, as the church teaches
today, but to give them their full meaning.
And He goes on to teach that those who reject even the least important
command in the Law will be least in heaven, but that those who keep the
law and teach this obedience will be great in the Kingdom.
But both of these people will be in the Kingdom.
************************************************************************
*** Does God desire for us to observe the feasts?
************************************************************************
Yes. A strict scriptural case for this can be made for keeping
Tabernacles and the Passover, and an inferential scriptural case can be
made for keeping Trumpets, Atonement, Unleavened Bread, and Weeks. The
only feast that remains for which no scriptural can can be readily
identified is FirstFruits, which is the actual Biblical feast day upon
which Messiah rose from the dead.
But as Paul spoke (specifically concerning the keeping of the Passover)
1 Corinthians 5:7, 8 "Purge out therefore the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the
feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice
and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth."
We should not keep the feast with old, ignorant ceremony that has not
been expounded with the truth of what Messiah has done, but that we
should keep the feast with the sincerity and the truth of what Me did
do.
Messiah IS our Passover sacrifice. No longer do we sacrifice a lamb,
with it's blood on our doorposts thinking that this will cause the
death-angel to pass over us, but we keep the feast honoring what messiah
has done, and use it to explain the truth of Messiah's sacrifice for us.
And we can see in Acts chapter 18, that Paul did not reject the keeping
of the law or the feasts.
[Acts 18:18] And Paul after this tarried there yet a good
while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed
thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having
shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
In this passage, Paul is speaking about a Nazarite vow. Paul shaved his
head as part of the Nazarite vows, which are a specific function of
Mosaic law. If Paul really taught that we should abandon Mosaic law,
then why did he participate in the Nazarite vows, which are a specific
function of that same law?
And not only did he himself participate in the Nazarite vows, he also
sponsored four believers in the same vows, in Acts 21:21-28. Are these
the actions of someone who has rejected the keeping of the law?
[Acts 18:19] And he came to Ephesus, and left them there:
but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the
Jews. [20] When they desired him to tarry longer time with them,
he consented not;
In this passage, we find Paul teaching certain Jews who believed, and
they asked Paul to stay and teach them more, but Paul could not:
[Acts 18:21] But bade them farewell, saying, I must by
all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will
return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Paul could not, because He said that he mus "by all means" proceed to
Jerusalem to keep one of the high feasts.
************************************************************************
*** Does God desire for us to obey the Law?
************************************************************************
Yes. This is what the scriptures say! Modern theologians have made a
lot about the KJV rendering of the Greek word /pleroo/ in Mat 5:17 as
'fulfil' to mean "made irrelevant."
Be we must be honest with ourselves when addressing scripture. To begin
with, /pleroo/ does NOT mean 'to finish' as modern Christiandom would
like to suggest. See for yourself what it means:
4137 pleroo {play-ro'-o}
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to
full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular,
to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish,
carry out, (some undertaking)
2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass,
ratify, accomplish
2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will
(as made known in the law) to be obeyed as
it should be, and God's promises (given through
the prophets) to receive fulfilment
The word itself that has been rendered 'to fulfil' means "to cause God's
will to be obeyed as it should be." It means "to ratify or accomplish."
It means "to carry into effect, to bring into realization." It means
"to carry through." It means "to make complete." It means "to render
perfect."
But we have more to go on than just the meaning of the word /pleroo/.
We also have the all-important context. Surely we know that the
interpretation of a passage of scripture cannot violate it's direct
context.
And what is the context of the phrase where Messiah has come to fulfill
the law? Immediately BEFORE the phrase, Messiah says He has not come to
destroy the law, and immediately AFTER the phrase, Messiah says that the
law will not be destroyed or altered in any way, until heaven and earth
will pass away.
We must be honest with ourselves here. If "to fulfill" in this passage
really meant that he came to 'end' or 'finish' the law, then why did he
say immediately before that He had not come to destroy it, and
immediately after that the law would not be finished until heaven and
earth had passed away?
To interpret 'to fulfill' in this phrase as though it mean 'to finish'
is a violation of not only the meaning of the Greek word, but also of
the context in which it resides.
Think about it. To make the word 'fulfil' in Matthew 5:17 mean 'to
finish' requires some pretty amazing mental gymnastics.
"I have not come to destroy the law, but to finish it. Truly I say to
you, heaven and earth will pass away, but nothing will pass from the law
until all has been finished." (The second 'fulfilled' in this passage
is /ginomai/ which really DOES mean brought into existence, completed,
brought to pass, or finished)
Has heaven and earth passed away? No. Has everything been finished?
No. Can you see that it makes no sense to say, "I have not come to end
the law, but to end it." ?
Conservative Christians pride themselves on making straightforward
interpretations of the written text of scripture, but bend over
backwards to make mat 5:17 say something that is does not. Apparently
the idea that God desires of us to observe the law is frightening enough
that many of us are willing to give up our standards of strict
interpretation.
************************************************************************
*** Will God punish us if we reject the Law?
************************************************************************
No. We can see from Matthew 5 quoted above that God has chosen not to
encourage the observance of the law in that manner. Instead of
punishing those who do not keep the law, He has chosen to reward those
who do, and to not reward those who do not.
We can surmise from Messiah's teachings and Paul's explanations that the
reason for this is that such a strict standard of obedience or
punishment is far too open to abuse by those mortal men who would seek
to weild power over the people of God.
This is what the scribes and the Pharisees did in Messiah's day. They
perverted what the true purpose and intent of the law was, and used the
thought-frame of "obey or be condemned" as a weapon, or a tool to weild
power over the people of Israel. They made God into a political tool,
which enraged Him.
Therefore, because making a choice of "obey or be punished" was far too
open to abuse by fallen man, God chose instead to encourage the
observance of law with reward. If you obey, God will reward you. If
you do not obey, God will not reward you.
But if we want to obey God from a pure heart, it is not that we would
obey BECAUSE we will be rewarded. Instead, we read how God rewards
those who obey, and does not reward those who reject, and from that
figure out that God WANTS us to obey rather than reject. And so we WANT
to do what God wants us to. Not because we desire a greater reward, but
because we desire to do what God wants of us.
************************************************************************
*** Will God punish us if we reject the feasts?
************************************************************************
No. The feasts are a part of the law, and therefore they serve the same
function as the law -- to provide for us a deeper revelation of who God
is, and who Messiah is. And, just like the keeping of the law is a
function of reward rather than punishment and condemnation, so also are
the keeping of the feasts likewise.
Now, there /is/ a punishment involved in rejecting the feasts, but it is
not God who punishes us for rejecting the feasts, but we who are
punishing ourselves.
The feasts provide for us a deeper understanding of who Messiah is, what
He has done, and what He will do in the future. Therefore, by rejecting
the feasts, we have punished ourselves by rejecting this deper
revelation and denying ourselves access to this deeper understanding of
the Messiah.
************************************************************************
*** Why should we keep the feasts and obey the Law?
************************************************************************
We should keep the feasts and observe the law, because we want a deeper
understanding of God and Messiah. We should do these things because we
want Messiah to be reflected more strongly in our own lives.
But it is vitally important to remember that observing the law is /not/
what the Pharisees were doing which Messiah rejected. Neither is it
what the Jews do today, who keep only the shadow of a Messiah whom they
did not recognize when He came.
The law is not what you have been led to believe that it is. It is a
revelation of the nature of God, and an explanation of what is in the
hearts of those people who please Him.
You have probably been taught that the law is a collection of physical
commandments that bear little or no relevance to us today. But that is
not the case. Messiah gave us the pattern for how we are to understand
the law in Matthew 5, when he spoke about the commandment which states
"You shall do no murder" and explained that this meant we should not
harbore hatred in our hearts for our fellow man.
Following the same pattern, spiritual inferences can be made for all of
the Mosaic law. Paul spoke about the law which states that it is wrong
to muzzle the ox which treads the grain, and explained that this meant
people should not avoid paying their servants.
The Mosaic law states that the farmer must leave the corners of his
field unharvestes for the poor, that they might have food to eat.
Today, we know that it is right to give the corners of our own produce
for the poor.
It is important to know WHAT observing the law means. Sure we can go so
far as to physically refrain from shaving our beards, physically binding
scriptures to our foreheads, physically refraining from mixing fibers in
our clothes, and physically refraining from eating certain meats -- but
that is /not/ what the law is about, and if we do those thngs while
ignoring the more important deeper meanings behind those commands, we
are keeping the law in vain.
If we obey the spirit of the law while not actually keeping the letter
of the law, then we have indeed kept the law, although not in it's
totality.
But if we DO choose physically bind scriptures to our foreheads during a
time of prayer, it is in order to focus ourselves on the TRUE intent
behind the commandment, and in our prayers -- to emblazon the word of
God into our minds. And the physical act becomes a 'visual aid' so to
speak to focus our thoughts and prayers.
And if we DO choose to physically refrain from mixing fibers in our
clothing, it is only in order to help us focus on the TRUE meaning
behind he commandment that we suld not clothe ourselves in mixed
messages, we cannot speak out of both sides of our mouth, being worldly
on the left hand, and praching God on the right hand. This becomes
nothing more than a practice we engage in to REMIND us that we are
either of God, or of the world. We will either live to fulfill our
lusts, or we will live to fulfill the will of God.
And if we DO choose to refrain from eating certain meats, it is because
we choose to take up that practice in order to remind ourselves not to
consume those things that detract from God ordering our thoughts. To
avoid pornography and absorbing certain television programs that are
blasphemous and create a deviance from God within us.
But obeying the law is NOT about strapping a Bible to our foreheads,
making sure our clothes contain no mixed fibers, and refusing to eat
pork. The law of God IS about saturating our minds with His word, being
of a singular heart to serve Him, and avoiding those things which
detract from Him performing His will in us. The physical representation
of these things serves only as a reminder to order our thoughts and
meditations as we approach God.
Mike Bugal
psalmsmith wrote:
> I understand that there may be some confusion concerning my position on
> the feasts and the law. Additionally, some persons have taken it upon
> themselves to mischaracterize my position, which may add to the
> confusion. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to clarify
> some issues in regards to my position on the law and the feasts.
>
Glen, this posting was a clear and precise statement of your position
on this matter. Only those who wish to misunderstand possibly could
now. Thank you. [More later... folks are still sleeping here and the
keyboard is noisy. :-) ] God bless.
His and Yours,
Mike Bugal
Heartland Christian Ministries
http://www.hcm2.org/
Mike Bugal
Mike Bugal wrote:
> psalmsmith wrote:
> > I understand that there may be some confusion concerning my position on
> > the feasts and the law. Additionally, some persons have taken it upon
> > themselves to mischaracterize my position, which may add to the
> > confusion. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to clarify
> > some issues in regards to my position on the law and the feasts.
> >
> <snip an excellent posting for the sake of brevity only>
>
> Glen, this posting was a clear and precise statement of your position
> on this matter. Only those who wish to misunderstand possibly could
> now. Thank you. [More later... folks are still sleeping here and the
> keyboard is noisy. :-) ] God bless.
>
>
Okay, everyone is up now... so I'll continue. :-)
Beyond the unbiblical "dispensationalism" and denominationalism that
many Christians todays walk is based in there are a couple of
principals involved here. First: It has been my experience that the
reason that some folks WISH to misunderstand positions such as yours is
any thought that God expects more from us than a one time "decision" is
anathema. The second principal is: Many believers today exist on the
mere suface of Biblical Christianity and resist any idea that maturity
requires us to "go deeper". If we were to think in terms of the
Tabernacle: they would be satisfied to wander around in the Outer Court
and talk about how marvelous the Brazen Altar is. But they would never
approach the Brazen Laver let alone go on into the Holy Place or Holy
of Holies... even though the way is wide open to them to do so. If it
doesn't have to do with the Brazen Altar most don't want to hear it!!
But some DO and will be led into a deeper walk because of it. Focus on
those folks... and pray for the others. :-)
God bless!
P.T.
to YHWH.
Patty
"psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
news:psalmsmith-198EC...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>But both of these people will be in the Kingdom.
Except for those without balls, and those that are bastards. ;-)
Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (KJV)
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off,
shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not
enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation
shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
And what about those extremely valuable foreskins that David acquired?
1st Samuel 18:27 (KJV)
Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the
Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and
they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's
son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
And I guess showing with the family is definitely out of the question.
Leviticus 18:6-23 (KJV)
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to
uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father,
or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy
mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy
father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter
of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover. The nakedness of thy son's daughter,
or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not
uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy
father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister,
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she
is thy mother's near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is
thine aunt. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in
law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou
shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy
brother's nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman
and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her
daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near
kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her
life time. Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her
nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover
thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile
thyself with her. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through
the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I
am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down
thereto: it is confusion.
Mark T
>I understand that there may be some confusion concerning my position on
> the feasts and the law.
GOD'S ETERNAL LAWS ABOUT WOMEN FROM "God's Word" THE BIBLE
EXODUS
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, ... nor his ass, nor any thing
that is thy neighbor's." In the Bible, women are the property of men; they
are his possessions -- like an ox or an ass. 20:17
LEVITICUS
God lays down the law on menstruating women. Such women are to God both
filthy and sinful, and anyone who comes near them is contaminated by them.
15:19-30, 33
A man who has sex with a menstruating woman "shall be unclean seven days."
15:24
If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from
among their people." 20:18
God defines the value of human life in dollars and cents. Of course, to God,
females are worth considerably less than males (50 - 60%) -- but neither are
worth much. 27:3-7
NUMBERS
The Law of Jealousies. If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he
reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some "bitter
water." If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell.
If innocent, no harm done -- the woman is free and will "conceive seed." In
any case, "the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall
bear her iniquity." 5:11-31
If men make vows, then God expects them to keep them. But a woman cannot
make a vow, unless it is "allowed" by her husband or father. If it is
"allowed," then she must keep it -- but even so, she is not responsible (her
husband or father is). 30:3-16
DEUTERONOMY
Don't covet your neighbor's wife or ass -- or any thing that belongs to your
neighbor. You see, in the eyes of God, women are the possessions of men.
5:21
In the cities that god "delivers into thine hands" you must kill all the
males (including old men, boys, and babies) with "the edge of the sword ....
But the women ... shalt thou take unto yourself." 20:13-14
If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife,
then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you
don't like her, you can "let her go." 21:11-14
Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord."
22:5
If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she
wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the
"tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to
death at her father's doorstep. 22:13-21
PSALMS
"In sin did my mother conceive me." God considers both women and sex to be
sinful. 51:5
PROVERBS
Don't give your strength to women. 31:3
"Who can find a virtuous woman?" Virtuous men are much more common. 31:10
ISAIAH
Isaiah shows his contempt for women by saying that things have gotten so bad
for his people that "women rule over them." 3:12
LUKE
Even Mary had to be "purified" after giving birth to Jesus. Was she defiled
by giving birth to the Son of God? 2:22
ROMANS
Paul explains that "the natural use" of women is to act as sexual objects
for the pleasure of men. 1:27
1 TIMOTHY
Women are to dress modestly, "with shamefacedness" -- "not with braided
hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 2:9
Paul forbids women to teach or "to usurp authority over" men. Rather they
are to "learn [from men] in silence with all subjection [to men]." 2:11-12
Men are superior to women in Paul's eyes, since Adam was made before, and
sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, Paul says they
shouldn't be discouraged because they shall "be saved in childbearing."
2:14-15
2 TIMOTHY
In the last days, "silly women" who are "ever learning" will be "led away
with divers lusts." 3:6-7
1 PETER
Wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to
braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these
things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in
subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him
Lord." 3:2-6
2 PETER
Lot, who in Gen.19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel
rapers and later (19:30-38) impregnates them, was a "righteous man." 2:8
REVELATION
Only 144,000 celibate men will be saved. (Those who were not "defiled with
women.") 14:1-4
From http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Dore
> ************************************************************************
>
> No. The feasts and the law are a revelation of God and Messiah. The
> law reveals the nature of God, and the feasts describe in exquisie
> detail who Messiah is and what He does. Insomuch as God is the God of
> the whole world, likewise, the law reveals the nature of God unto the
> whole world. Inasmuch as the Messiah is the Messiah for the whole
> world, the feasts reveal for the whole world who Messiah is, and what He
> does.
>
> If we say that God and messiah are only for the Jews, we might also say
> that the feasts and the law are only for the Jews. But because God and
> messiah are for the whole world, then that which reveals God and Messiah
> is also for the whole world.
>
The time for celebrating Jewish feasts is OVER. God already stated He was
sick of them.
Isa 1:13-14
13 Bring 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.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a
trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
KJV
--
Dore
"psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
news:psalmsmith-198EC...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
Mike Bugal
Dore wrote:
> The time for celebrating Jewish feasts is OVER. God already stated He was
> sick of them.
>
> Isa 1:13-14
> 13 Bring 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.
> 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a
> trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
> KJV
>
Just so no one is confused by Dore's silliness:
Context (verses 1-12) shows exactly who God is speaking to in saying
this... namely a rebellious, sinful people who were doing religious
things while forgetting the purpose behind them. God has no interest in
feasts just for the sake of feasts any more than He is pleased with
those today who play plastic Jesus games... spouting Christian jargon
and singing Christian "jingles" while having no interest in obedience
to His Word.
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2397> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >I understand that there may be some confusion concerning my position on
> > the feasts and the law.
>
> GOD'S ETERNAL LAWS ABOUT WOMEN FROM "God's Word" THE BIBLE
Yes Mark, we already know that you have no discernment of Torah beyond
the physical surface. Thank you for confirming that for us once again.
psalmsmith
Saint Zombie <no.e...@truth.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:10:04 GMT, psalmsmith
> <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>
> >But both of these people will be in the Kingdom.
>
> Except for those without balls, and those that are bastards. ;-)
It is not suprising that you, like Mark, cannot grasp the deeper meaning
behind the superficial surface of God's Law. The Ruach haKodesh (Holy
Spirit of God) is required to dwell within us in order to open for us
that deeper interpretation. If we have not had the law enscribed onto
our hearts, then all we will see is the surface text, and therefore we
will have no understanding of the rich truth that is beneath the surface
of the text.
Also like Mark, you have been so kind as to post for us how deeply you
misunderstand what God has said. Thank you for clarifying your position
below.
psalmsmith
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
Dore, you have a long history of removing things from context in order
to push certain personal adgendas, such as declaring to the world that
you are the Messiah.
For instance, the passage you quote is a chastizement of Israel by God
against those who would pay lip-service to His laws while remaining in
rebellion agains Him in their hearts.
That is the same practice that Yeshua, the REAL Messiah chastized the
scribes and the Pharisees for during His ministry.
It is interesting to note, of course, that Yeshua and Paul, both of whom
were born long after Isaiah had become dust, both observed the feasts.
psalmsmith
"P.T." <p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Great post, except the part about human sacrifice, which is an abomination
> to YHWH.
>
> Patty
Nevertheless, haShem called on Abram to take the knife to Yitschaq and
he did. This test is in part why the LORD chose Yitschaq to carry the
seed of promise to Ya`aqob, through David, and to become Messiah in
Miriam's seed. Yeshua l'Yishrael, Yeshua l'Goyim.
Ha Moshiach was the firstborn lamb without spot, and was led as a lamb
to the slaughter. Yeshayahu spoke of this as you know.
Of course, Abraham was dust before Moshe was born, but the Law is not
bound by time, and neither does haShem change from time to time.
And where does it say in the Tanakh that haShem hates for us to be
willing to sacrifice our own lives to save the lives of others? I read
in several places that it is an abomination to the LORD for anybody to
cast their children into the fire as though they were a burnt offering.
I see in Torah and Tanakh that God hates the killing of people against
their will whether in service to the false gods of the pagans or to
YHVH, the God of Israel.
But nowhere do I read that haShem has callit it wrong for a person to
sacrifice themselves in order to save others. Indeed, I see quite the
contrary, that the LORD encourages such a spirit in His Law.
Deuteronomy 12:30-32 "Take heed to thyself that thou be
not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from
before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying,
How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do
likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every
abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto
their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have
burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish
from it."
"...for even their sons and daughters they have burnt in the fire to
their gods."
Not only is this speaking of an unclean people giving sacrifice to
unclean and false gods, but it is also an abomination because it is
showing a people who love their idols more than their unclean children,
and giving up their children in sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Messiah in our stead and as our passover lamb, is not
like the pagans who would show their devotion to false gods by burning
their children alive in the fires of sacrifices. The sacrifice of
Moshiach is the culmination of the Law of haShem, wherein salvation was
written from from thence backwards to Adam and on forwards to you and me.
Jeremiah 19:4-6 "Because they have forsaken me, and have
estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other
gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the
kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of
innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn
their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I
commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this
place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son
of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter."
Again, we have children being offered in the fires for burnt offerings,
in order to prove that these people were more dedicated to their false
gods than to their own lives and to the lives of their children.
Had the LORD intended for such a sacrifice as that made willingly by
Moshiach (and NOT by unwilling children at the damand of their parents
and their governments) then haShem would have told us so in His law.
But nowhere in the Torah or the Tanakh do we read that it is an
abomination to sacrifice yourself willingly in order to save the lives
of others.
Mark T
>> GOD'S ETERNAL LAWS ABOUT WOMEN FROM "God's Word" THE BIBLE
>
> Yes Mark
Amen!
Make sure you follow all of the following of God's infallible word - the
Bible ..........
Mark T
> The Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit of God) is required to dwell within us in
> order to open >for us that deeper interpretation.
Translation from the Christianese:
Griz's Divine Osmosis is required to be a Trew Kristyun!
Saint Zombie wrote:
> >But both of these people will be in the Kingdom.
>
> Except for those without balls, and those that are bastards. ;-)
Obviously true because the God's infallible word - the Bible says
psalmsmith
"Mike Bugal" <mbu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Bugal wrote:
> > psalmsmith wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be some confusion concerning my position on
> > > the feasts and the law. Additionally, some persons have taken it upon
> > > themselves to mischaracterize my position, which may add to the
> > > confusion. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to clarify
> > > some issues in regards to my position on the law and the feasts.
> > >
> > <snip an excellent posting for the sake of brevity only>
> >
> > Glen, this posting was a clear and precise statement of your position
> > on this matter. Only those who wish to misunderstand possibly could
> > now. Thank you. [More later... folks are still sleeping here and the
> > keyboard is noisy. :-) ] God bless.
> >
> >
>
> Okay, everyone is up now... so I'll continue. :-)
>
> Beyond the unbiblical "dispensationalism" and denominationalism that
> many Christians todays walk is based in there are a couple of
> principals involved here. First: It has been my experience that the
> reason that some folks WISH to misunderstand positions such as yours is
> any thought that God expects more from us than a one time "decision" is
> anathema.
I think that is true. In addition to not truly wanting to understand it
for themselves, they still retain the pride that wants to cast
themselves in a better light than those around them. That is not to say
that those who choose this path are better, far from it, but rather to
address the perceptions of those who have their pride offended.
I have seen it several times when discussing this topic. I have no mind
within me to think I am better than anybody by any means. It seems the
deeper I go, the lower opinion I have of myself. Nevertheless, when
discussing this topic in particular I am regularly accused of doing so
only because I think I am better than others.
I think that reveals more about the perceptions of the people who say
such a thing than anything else. Just as you say above, to some, the
very concept that God wants us to explore more deeply is anathema,
because (and this would be in their minds) they see that if God wants us
to be any deeper, than some people must be deeper than others, and
therefore 'better' somehow, which is contrary to their sense of pride.
But truly in the Kingdom, there is not 'better' in that sense. In fact,
it is in this particular area that truth actually bears a resemblance to
nihilism, in the sense of a "one-man universe." Better and worse are
not qualitative judgments applied from man to man, except inasmuch as it
applies to saved or not saved. The journey from worse to better is not
a competition between persons, but a journey within the hearts and lives
of every individual in God.
> The second principal is: Many believers today exist on the
> mere suface of Biblical Christianity and resist any idea that maturity
> requires us to "go deeper". If we were to think in terms of the
> Tabernacle: they would be satisfied to wander around in the Outer Court
> and talk about how marvelous the Brazen Altar is. But they would never
> approach the Brazen Laver let alone go on into the Holy Place or Holy
> of Holies... even though the way is wide open to them to do so.
What you see as principals, I see likewise as groups. A group of people
who misunderstand the position due to pride, another group who
misunderstands because they are satisfied where they are...
But likely principals are more accurate. It seems more likely on
thinking about it that more than one of these principles driving people
to misunderstand this position may reside within an individual, with one
being more prominent than the others, which as caused me to identify
them instead as groups. One group opposed due to pride, one group
opposed because they are satisfied where they are and afraid exploring
more deeply will lead to deeper obligation, another group that gets
apoplectic at the mere mention of any concept that may be considered
"Jewish," or another group who is afraid to face the thought - right or
wrong being irrelevant they are just afraid to face the thought - that
the dozens of generations that came before them may have been wrong.
But it really does make more sense to think of those same thoughts more
as principals at work within people than as characteristics of groups of
people I have met.
> If it
> doesn't have to do with the Brazen Altar most don't want to hear it!!
> But some DO and will be led into a deeper walk because of it. Focus on
> those folks... and pray for the others. :-)
Indeed good advice. Though I have in the past been fair dinkum at
withstanding the heathen without resorting to ungodliness, the heathen
have gotten smarter and banded together.
You are right, it is more important to focus on those that are looking
for a deeper understanding than to chastise the superficial and the
mockers for not wanting to look deeper. The former provides progress,
growth, and edification for the Kingdom, while the latter serves only to
dissolution of the bonds which already exist between brethren.
> God bless!
>
> His and Yours,
>
> Mike Bugal
> Heartland Christian Ministries
> http://www.hcm2.org/
>
Shalom!
Glen
Mark T
> What you see as principals, I see likewise as groups.
Oh ... a group of principals! Like a Principals' Conference.
> But likely principals are more accurate.
One would hope so since they are supervising a lot of teachers.
> principals at work
Principals work very hard.
Read The Bible
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical
priesthood, (for under it the people received the
law,) what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not
be called after the order of Aaron? For the
priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity
a change also of the law. For he of whom these things
are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no
man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident
that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is
yet far more evident: for that after the similitude
of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is
made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
after the power of an endless life. For he
testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a
disannulling of the commandment going before for the
weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law
made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And
inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
(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:) By so much was Jesus
made a surety of a better testament.
Who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the
truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only
would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye
so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many
things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 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? Even as Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are
of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And
the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed
with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the
works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in
all things which are written in the book of the law
to do them. But that no man is justified by the law
in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just
shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith:
but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed
is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the
blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I
speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a
man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And
to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law,
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is
no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by
promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added
because of transgressions, till the seed should come
to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by
angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is
not a mediator of one, but God is one. 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. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be
given to them that believe. But before faith came, we
were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which
should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith. But after that faith is
come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And
if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise.
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye
not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had
two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born
after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by
promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this
Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to
Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her
children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which
is the mother of us all. 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. Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even
so it is now. 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. So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bondwoman, but of the free. Stand fast therefore
in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,
and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I
testify again to every man that is circumcised, that
he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become
of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through
the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by
faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith
which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did
hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This
persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have
confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be
none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you
shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I,
brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet
suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross
ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble
you.
psalmsmith
"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Will we be punished if we do not keep Mosaic Law?
You seem to have confused two completely separate concepts. The
Levitical Priesthood is not the same thing as the Mosaic Law. The
people of Israel were enjoined to the Mosaic Law on pain of death under
the Levitical Priesthood, and because the priesthood has changed, the
people of God are no longer enjoined on pain of death, as I have said in
the post you have responded to.
No longer is there the pentalty of death, imposed against those who
reject the law, because being that we are under a different priesthood
(Melchisedek as oppised to levitical) we have not enjoined ourselves to
the Law on pain of death. Therefore, just as messiah taught in Matthew
5, you can reject the observance of the law, and you will not be denied
salvation or entrance to the Kingdom.
The passage of scripture you are quoting, describes the priesthood. In
ancient times, priests were out of Levi or Aaron. Before them there was
a priest of a different order, whose name was Melchisedek, to whom
Abraham paid tithes.
Now, no priest ever came out of Judah, and Moses never descreibed a
Judahite priesthood. But Moses DID write about Abraham and Melchisedek.
Therefore, since the (Levitical) priesthood under which the people were
enjoined to the law under penalty of death has passed away, no longer
are the people enjoined, but are free to observe what is life in the law
and not only what is death. This is how our new High Priest Yeshua
administers the Law.
Hebrews 7:11-14 The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H.
Peterson
A Permanent Priesthood
11If the priesthood of Levi and Aaron, which provided the framework for
the giving of the law, could really make people perfect, there wouldn't
have been need for a new priesthood like that of Melchizedek. 12But
since it didn't get the job done, there was a change of priesthood,
which brought with it a radical new kind of law. 13There is no way of
understanding this in terms of the old Levitical priesthood, 14which is
why there is nothing in Jesus' family tree connecting him with that
priestly line.
Hebrews 7:11-14 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society
11Even though the Law of Moses says that the priests must be descendants
of Levi, those priests cannot make anyone perfect. So there needs to be
a priest like Melchizedek, rather than one from the priestly family of
Aaron. [a] 12And when the rules for selecting a priest are changed, the
Law must also be changed. 13The person we are talking about is our Lord,
who came from a tribe that had never had anyone to serve as a priest at
the altar. 14Everyone knows he came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses
never said that priests would come from that tribe.
Hebrews 7:9-28 "And through Abraham, as one may say, even Levi who
receiveth tithes, was himself tithed. For he was yet in the loins of his
father, when he met Melchisedec. If, therefore, perfection had been by
means of the priesthood of the Levites, in which the law was enjoined on
the people; why was another priest required, who should stand up after
the likeness of Melchisedec? For it should have said, He shall be after
the likeness of Aaron. But as there is a change in the priesthood, so
also is there a change in the law. For he of whom these things were
spoken, was born of another tribe, of which no one ever ministered at
the altar. For it is manifest that our Lord arose from Judah, from a
tribe of which Moses said nothing concerning a priesthood. And moreover
this is further manifest, from his saying that another priest will stand
up, after the likeness of Melchisedec, who was not according to the law
of corporeal injunctions, but according to the energy of an indissoluble
life. For he testified of him: Thou art a priest for ever, after the
likeness of Melchisedec. And the change which was made in the first
statute, was on account of its impotency, and because their was no
utility in it. For the law perfected nothing; but in the place of it
there came in a hope, which is better than it, and by which we draw near
to God.-- And he confirmed it to us by an oath. For they became priests
without an oath; but this man by an oath. As he said to him by David:
The Lord hath sworn, and will not lie, Thou art a priest for ever, after
the likeness of Melchisedec. By all this, is that a better covenant of
which Jesus is the sponsor.-- And they as priests were numerous, because
they were mortal, and were not permitted to continue: but this man,
because he standeth up for ever, his priesthood doth not pass away: and
he is able to vivify for ever, them who come to God by him; for he
always liveth, and sendeth up prayers for them.-- For, a priest like to
him, was also suitable for us; one pure, and without evil and without
stain; one separated from sins, and exalted higher than heaven; and who
is not obliged, every day, like the Aaronic high priest, to first offer
sacrifices for his own sins, and then for the people; for this he did
once, by offering up himself. For the law constituted feeble men
priests; but the word of the oath, which was subsequent to the law
constituted the Son perfect for ever." (MUR)
What law was changed? The law that said priests must come from Aaron
and Moses, of course. The context of the passage is critical to
understanding what is being said here.
The rest of this is out of context likewise, but I do not have the time
to write out volumes and volumes of scripture quotes and explanations to
put these passages into their proper context. If anybody is still
curious, then I will be more than glad to address these one at a time.
It is a good idea, if you are quoting scripture to actually understand
what the scripture is saying.
The passages below speak against LEGALISM which is of course evil.
Yeshua also railed against the same thing heavily against the Scribes
and the Pharisees.
There is a differnce between legalism and law, but there was not a
different word in Koine Greek for legalism and law. You have to examine
the context of what is being said to know which concept Paul is talking
about here.
If you want more depth on any of the passages below, pick one and we
will break it out and analyze it in light of it's context and the rest
of scripture.
P.T.
> In article <mGKdf.3884$DL6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> "P.T." <p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Great post, except the part about human sacrifice, which is an
>> abomination
>> to YHWH.
>>
>> Patty
>
> Nevertheless, haShem called on Abram to take the knife to Yitschaq and
> he did.
Not if you read the Hebrew. God commanded Abraham to take Isaac, go up and
offer a sacrifice. The translators wrongly wrote offer HIM up as a
sacrifice.
Patty
gedalyah
like Pastor Dave from who we have heard that Yeshua haMashiah commanded
the roman legions in destroying Yerushalaim in the year 70.(see the
festival topic from psalmsmith)
One (big) problem with the Christian teaching is that it lacks seeing
the Jewish thinking beyond the Scriptures. Example: the most cited
author in bringing arguments in favor of Christianity breaking with
(natural) Jewish roots is Paul. Well actually his name is Shaul and he
was at least a hakham (a writer of the law) not to say that some think
of him as a rabbi (like i do). Well rabbi Shaul was not only a jew till
the day he died but he thought as a Jew and wrote like a Jew even if he
filled big part of the Scriptures that "contain" the "doctrine" of the
dispensationalist "theology" defenders. So when we read anyone of his
letters we have to bring ourselves in the presence of the real Paul who
is in fact Shaul, rabbi Shaul. Remember when he describes himself
somewhere?: a son of Benjamin, a faultless law keeper etc. Of course
some like the part that he says "I made myself a law observer among the
law observers and an without law..." which of course has nothing to
do with Torah rather to the oral law teaching that was blamed when
found wrong even by Mashiah Himself. Nobody, i repeat nobody can
demonstrate that Yeshua and Shaul taught against Torah, G-d of Israel,
Temple, holy covenants, Scriptures, Yerushalaim, etc. Cause they did
not.
For plenty there is an "us and them" as even Shaul says: Tsefet
(Peter) had the mission to proclaim the "gospel" (what's that?!? oh,
you meant the oral law teaching as Mashiah taught and spelled to the
disciples when He was among us) to the circumcised while I (Shaul) to
the uncircumcised...well good news there. No way to read in greek (in
Galathians, yes, 2:7) peritome (circumcised) and aperitome
(uncircumcised) rather peritome (circumcised) and akrobustia
(ex-peritome that despised their circumcision and let the skin grow
again, that did not "maintained" the circumcision). So no way to think
in terms of "us and them" but in Jews and a great multitude of nations
as G-d promised to Yaakov our father. Cause all the blessing that came
in Mashiah came as established by the covenant that G-d Almighty did
with Abraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov. So there is no "us and them"
that's what Shaul says all the way down on his epistles, and Yeshua
ben David says it too "I am not sent but for the lost sheep of the
house of Israel".
Again good job psalmsmith
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>all we will see is the surface text
You mean like all those bible errors.
Manuals are no good if they reference another product.
Pharisees don't need a manual, they make their own.
Dore
> Dore, you have a long history of removing things from context in order
> to push certain personal adgendas, such as declaring to the world that
> you are the Messiah.
>
> For instance, the passage you quote is a chastizement of Israel by God
> against those who would pay lip-service to His laws while remaining in
> rebellion agains Him in their hearts.
>
> That is the same practice that Yeshua, the REAL Messiah chastized the
> scribes and the Pharisees for during His ministry.
>
> It is interesting to note, of course, that Yeshua and Paul, both of whom
> were born long after Isaiah had become dust, both observed the feasts.
God doesn't care about worthless rituals, feasts and celebrations in these
end times. ALL He is concerned about is what is INSIDE the heart, minds,
souls and spirits of men. He wants men at this time, perfectly prepared for
judgment, pure, obedient, holy, righteous, sinless and blameless. It doesn't
matter if you celebrate any old Jewish feasts or even Christmas, for they
are worthless compared to your attitude, obedience, respect, honor,
commitment and servitude of HIM. That is the trouble with modern
Christianity and people like you, who demand observance to these feasts and
festivals, you are just like the Pharisees, for your heart is far from God
and your pretense in your ridiculous notions that these rituals somehow
please God is careless because you NEVER OBEY anything that I said in the
gospels anyway, so what good are your feasts and observances anyway?
--
Dore
"psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
news:psalmsmith-D2879...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
Dore
news:1131932572....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just so no one is confused by Dore's silliness:
>
> Context (verses 1-12) shows exactly who God is speaking to in saying
> this... namely a rebellious, sinful people who were doing religious
> things while forgetting the purpose behind them. God has no interest in
> feasts just for the sake of feasts any more than He is pleased with
> those today who play plastic Jesus games... spouting Christian jargon
> and singing Christian "jingles" while having no interest in obedience
> to His Word.
Yea, speaking to rebellious, sinful people, JUST LIKE YOU, who have NO
interest in being obedient to His word. But, even though you don't bother
obeying anything commanded, demanded and required in the gospels, now you
think that celebrating ancient feasts that don't mean a thing is somehow
fulfilling your obligation to Him, while completely ignoring the things that
HE DOES CARE ABOUT, being pure, holy, sinless, blameless, righteous and
perfect before the throne and while you are disobedient, sinful, neglectful,
disrespectful, self-serving, earthly and pretentious, you ignore the fact
THAT it is YOUR illness.
--
Dore
"Mike Bugal" <mbu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131932572....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
psalmsmith
> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
> news:psalmsmith-9E93D...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>In article <mGKdf.3884$DL6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>>"P.T." <p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Great post, except the part about human sacrifice, which is an
>>>abomination
>>>to YHWH.
>>>
>>>Patty
>>
>>Nevertheless, haShem called on Abram to take the knife to Yitschaq and
>>he did.
>
>
> Not if you read the Hebrew. God commanded Abraham to take Isaac, go up and
> offer a sacrifice. The translators wrongly wrote offer HIM up as a
> sacrifice.
>
> Patty
>
>
really?
When I read the Hebrew, I get the same understanding as it is rendered
in English in the KJV, only deeper:
בראשית 22,2] ןהעלהן שם לעלה על אחד ההרים אשר אמר אליך
בעברי בראשת 22,2 היה נגה
הדברי עלה היה הפל
The form of the verb /alah/ is HIPHIL, to CAUSE to ascend, and
IMPERITAVE, "DO cause to go up" suffix /u/ "do cause him to go up"
(Referring to Isaac) /sem/ "there" /l'oleh/ to/for an offering /al/ upon
/echad/ one /h'hariym/ the mountains
ןהעלהן
/vhaalehu/ "and cause him to go up" /hiphil/ form of verb /alah/ in
second person masculine.
שם
/sem/ "there"
לעלה
/oleh/ is an early participle form of the verb /alah/ 'to go up' /oleh/
is 'that which goes up, a burnt offering.'
Abram CAUSED (/alah hiphil/ caused to go up) Isaac to go up there, and
that which went up was the burnt offring.
על
/al/ "on/upon"
דאח
/echad/ "one"
ההרים
/h'hariym/ "(of) the mountains"
"...and cause him to go up there (that which goes up) for (a) burnt
offering upon one (of) the mountains..."
Read The Bible
> yud or vav should be removed from the law until
> heaven and earth had passed away
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.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning me. Then opened he their understanding,
that they might understand the scriptures, And said
unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
day.
In him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is
the head of all principality and power: In whom also
ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him
in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your
sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his
cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers,
he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them
in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new
moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of
things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Read The Bible
Ye have heard that it hath been said (in the Mosaic
Law), An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I (Jesus) say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and
saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife for every cause? And he answered and said
unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female, And said,
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be
one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one
flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses
then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And
I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery.
And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the
first, that he went through the corn fields; and his
disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat,
rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the
Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is
not lawful to do on the sabbath days? And Jesus
answering them said, Have ye not read so much as
this, what David did, when himself was an hungred,
and they which were with him; How he went into the
house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and
gave also to them that were with him; which it is
not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? And he
said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of
the sabbath.
Read The Bible
(Doesn't say "in the Law")
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments...
I (Jesus) say unto you...
Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and
doeth them not...
Read The Bible
(Not before He fulfilled it)
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the
law of commandments contained in ordinances.
Who 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. But
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: How shall not the ministration of the
spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration
of condemnation be glory, much more doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For
even that which was made glorious had no glory in
this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
For if that which is done away was glorious, much
more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then
that we have such hope, we use great plainness of
speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his
face, that the children of Israel could not
stedfastly look to the end of that which is
abolished.
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have
heard, that certain which went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to
whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto
us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen
men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men
that have hazarded their lives for the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and
Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by
mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to
us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered
to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Read The Bible
> who has rejected the keeping of the law?
I (Paul) made myself servant unto all, that I might
gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew,
that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under
the law, as under the law, that I might gain them
that are under the law.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him
to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before
that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing them which were of the
circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise
with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried
away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of
the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If
thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou
the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews
by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing
that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified
by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the
law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by
Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is
therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For
if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make
myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead
to the law, that I might live unto God. I am
crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not
I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of
God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not
frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come
by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
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? 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
P.T.
"psalmsmith" <psalm...@ncs.prra.mcom> wrote in message
news:0Jxef.456$xD5.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Hi, It doesn't mean both. It says to cause him to go up, but not to OFFER
HIM. A Jewish immigrant to Israel is also called 'oleh' but he isn't a burnt
psalmsmith
"P.T." <p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Right, but in this case /oleh/ DOES mean 'burnt offering' because /alah/
had already been used in the second word before. Two connected words
with the exact same root, are being used here. It's actually rather
obvious.
gedalyah
> > Messiah did not come to do away with the Law
>
> (Not before He fulfilled it)
instruction (interpretation) of the Torah that he faught all the way
down. And He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing that) :He
gave the real , the truthfully interpretation as G-d intented and
spelled it to Moshe long before. There is no law that Yeshua erased.
Not even the ceremonial law: remember that we all enter presence of
Almighty by the blood of the Lamb and we have a mediator in the
heavenly Temple, Yeshua haMashiah the High Priest. So we are "using"
the way G-d commanded in order to enter in the presence of the Holy
One. And as psalmsmith mentioned earlier even Shaul (Paul) brought the
appropiate offernig for those that were to fullfill an nazarene oath.
And i mean those were Jewish messianic believers and Shaul too.
So there is no abolition of the Law and more as Yeshua faught wrong
interpretation when He was on earth expect same treatment for nowadays.
He never changes.
There is no Jews and Christians, no paralell standards. G-d never
intended that:the two olives doesn't mean: Israel and church rather
Yehuda (Judas) and Efraim.
big hug
Pastor Dave
<aba...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Read The Bible wrote:
>> > Messiah did not come to do away with the Law
>>
>> (Not before He fulfilled it)
> lol this is a trap. Neither before nor after.Was the twisted oral
>instruction (interpretation) of the Torah that he faught all the way
>down. And He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing that) :He
>gave the real , the truthfully interpretation as G-d intented and
>spelled it to Moshe long before. There is no law that Yeshua erased.
>Not even the ceremonial law: remember that we all enter presence of
>Almighty by the blood of the Lamb and we have a mediator in the
>heavenly Temple, Yeshua haMashiah the High Priest.
Fulfilled means filled. It is over.
You say, "even the ritual laws" are still active. Then you
spit in the face of Jesus Christ, since you then also must
perform the sacrifices for sin, when the Bible clearly
teaches that Jesus is the one time sacrifice.
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
forever, sat down on the right hand of God;" - Hebrews 10:12
As for your "High Priest" statement, the truth is, that also
leads us to end the sacrifices.
Hebrews 9:11-12
11) But when Christ had become a 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
12) nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own
blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having
obtained eternal redemption for us.
The Law is no longer active.
Romans 8:1-2
1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to
the flesh but according to the Spirit.
2) But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
made me free from the law of sin and death.
The law of sin and death is the law to which you refer.
And Paul addressed people like you, trying to bring
the Law into Christian faith.
Galatians 3:1-3
1) O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey
the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was
written among you crucified?
2) This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the
Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
3) Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you
now perfect yourself in the flesh?
It doesn't apply to Christians at all. It also didn't apply
to Gentiles in the first place.
"Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law,
and boast in God;" - Romans 2:17
It was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law..."
- Romans 2:14a
And even for the Jews (and note the first verse, in which
he says, "I speak to those who know the law, which tells
us that he was speaking to the Jews in that church with
the following passages and not the Gentiles and he is
teaching them that their rest should not be in the law)...
Romans 7:1-6
1) Or are you ignorant, brothers; for I speak to those
who know the Law; that the law has dominion over a
man as long as he lives?
2) For the married woman was bound by law to the
living husband. But if the husband is dead, she is
set free from the law of her husband.
3) So then if, while her husband lives, she is married
to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But
if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that
she is no adulteress by becoming another man's wife.
4) So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the
law by the body of Christ so that you should be married
to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we
should bring forth fruit to God.
5) For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin
worked in our members through the law to bring forth
fruit to death.
6) But now we having been set free from the Law, having
died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in
newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Paul made a very clear point here. He used the law
regarding marriage and adultery, to show that it is
impossible that Christians are still under the Law.
The very thing that you seek to bind them to.
Paul first shows in many places, that the Law applied
to Jews. He is however, also addressing Jews in this
church, as is evident by the many Jewish tones of his
letter.
Anyway, he shows that they used to be bound by law,
to the Law, just as a wife is bound to her husband for
as long as he lives (we are the bride in this illustration).
However, he shows that since the old man has died,
that we are no longer bound under that Law. He shows
very clearly, that if the old man who was under the Law
had not died, that for us to be the bride of Christ, which
is what the church is, would be to commit adultery.
Do you understand that? Sit back and let the impact
of that really sink in!
If we are the bride of Christ, we are adulteresses, if we
have not indeed died to the Law. So why do you
advocate committing adultery?
Thus, the Law is not over us in any way, shape or form.
To claim that it is, is to claim that we are adulteresses.
We cannot be married to the Law and married to Christ.
Thus, either the old man that was bound under the Law
is dead and that legal binding with it and we are free to
be married to Christ, or that old man is not dead and we
are still bound under the Law and have no claim of being
in Christ to make. It is that simple and Paul used that
example to illustrate exactly that point.
There is no legal claim of the Law to make. The old man
that was bound under the Law is not just mortally wounded,
but still hanging on to a piece of that life. He is dead.
And if that is not the case for you, then you seek to commit
adultery and the Lord will not have you. You choose.
This is why Paul wrote what he did in Romans 7:13-25.
He was not describing his present state, but rather,
his state when he was living under the Law. And what
were his last words in that section?
Romans 7:24-25a
24) O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me
from the body of this death?
25a) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Read it carefully. He wasn't seeking an answer to his
present state. He was showing what the answer was
to his previous state, while under the Law. And what
was his answer to his problem?...
"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Jesus was his answer, to deliver him from the body of sin
that he had formerly lived in.
Paul taught us that the old man died on the cross with
Christ. I am not "just an old sinner, like everyone else,
except that I'm forgiven". That is blasphemy!
I am a new creature in Christ and that "old sinner"
died on that cross with Christ. So "it is no longer
I that lives, but Christ that lives within me".
I am a child of God, free to run up and jump in Dad's lap
and share in the joy that He has given me, which comes
from Him and what He has done through His Son and
through His Holy Spirit in my heart.
I do not "obey" because I'm afraid of some bug guy running
behind me with his big wooden spoon, ready to smack me
with it if I do something wrong. (:
I live to serve God, because the love in my heart draws me
to that life. I pay no attention to what the Law says,
because it is not something that I have to worry about and
I know that each day, I live for Him and that if I do make a
mistake, I have an advocate with the Father and that I can
*BOLDLY* come to the throne of grace, because of His
sacrifice for me. I am His son, not a wicked soldier that
has to be kept in line and shown a list of regulations that
I must fear. That is not salvation. That is tyranny. (:
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
ruth
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 04:24:09 -0800, "gedalyah"
> <aba...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >Read The Bible wrote:
> >> > Messiah did not come to do away with the Law
> >>
> >> (Not before He fulfilled it)
> > lol this is a trap. Neither before nor after.Was the twisted oral
> >instruction (interpretation) of the Torah that he faught all the way
> >down. And He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing that) :He
> >gave the real , the truthfully interpretation as G-d intented and
> >spelled it to Moshe long before. There is no law that Yeshua erased.
> >Not even the ceremonial law: remember that we all enter presence of
> >Almighty by the blood of the Lamb and we have a mediator in the
> >heavenly Temple, Yeshua haMashiah the High Priest.
>
> Fulfilled means filled. It is over.
>
> You say, "even the ritual laws" are still active. Then you
> spit in the face of Jesus Christ, since you then also must
> perform the sacrifices for sin, when the Bible clearly
> teaches that Jesus is the one time sacrifice.
>
> "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
> forever, sat down on the right hand of God;" - Hebrews 10:12
Yes, Yeshua paid the price for our sins. We were under a death sentence
if we committed even one sin, as Adam did. When we did, forgiven or
not, we became a sinner and subject to the death penalty and exclusion
from Paradise and the tree of everlasting life.
Yeshua, the Promised Seed of Gen.3, came to pay that death penalty for
us so that (John 3:16) by believing we might have everlasting life.
That's what His death on the cross purchased for us. It wasn't a
license to sin, that grace may abound. There is one unpardonable sin,
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit may very
well be, treating God's merciful gift of salvation for our sin as a
right to disobey Him and place our own decisions of what is right and
wrong above His.
So, yes, the above Scripture is correct. We are saved and our sins
forgiven forever through the blood of Yeshua. And that happened on the
cross.
But what about: Heb.10:28, "Anyone rejecting Moses Law, dies without
mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses".
And Heb. 8:4, "For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest,
since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law."
This says that not only the Mosaic Law and covenant was still
legitimate and in place but that Yeshua's death was not intended as a
replacement for the animal sacrifice system but as a sacrifice not
covered by that system at all. There was no method, within the Mosaic
Law, to gain salvation, everlasting life, and return to Paradise.
Yeshua is/was/will be the only Way. Once a person sins, it only
takes one sin, they have lost their right to return to Paradise.
But saying that, we know that Yeshua did forgive sins on earth and He
promised He would still forgive our sins if we ask Him. So, unlike
those who do not recognize Him as their Lord, we believers still have a
way of forgiveness for our sins, even though there is no more animal
sacrifice system available.
The point is, however, when the writer of Hebrews wrote this letter,
the Mosaic Law was still in place which included all God's wonderful
Laws including the ritual Laws. If you believe they have been
discontinued, you will have to find Scripture that supports that
statement and also determines when that took effect.
Ruth
<snipped>
ruth
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 04:24:09 -0800, "gedalyah"
> <aba...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >Read The Bible
>
>
> As for your "High Priest" statement, the truth is, that also
> leads us to end the sacrifices.
>
> Hebrews 9:11-12
>
> 11) But when Christ had become a 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
> 12) nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own
> blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having
> obtained eternal redemption for us.
"....having obtained eternal redemption...". He died in our place. He
paid the price, death, we deserved to purchase for us everlasting life.
Why did He need to do that? The animals sacrifice system was a way of
showing the mercy of God. Zachariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6 were
declared blameless and righteous by it. If His death was only a
substitute for that system, there would have been no real need for it.
But that sacrifice system did not have a way to wipe out our "sinner"
status. We had sinned, even though we were forgiven, we were sinners
and sinners could not go past the flaming torch.
Ruth
>
> The Law is no longer active.
>
> Romans 8:1-2
>
> 1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those
> who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to
> the flesh but according to the Spirit.
> 2) But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
> made me free from the law of sin and death.
What is the Law of Sin and Death? It is not the Mosaic Law! It is the
Law, any Law, that God has given to you, that if transgressed, results
in your becoming a sinner and banned from Paradise. This is what
Yeshua, as the Promised Seed, came to earth to free us from.
Ruth
>
> The law of sin and death is the law to which you refer.
> And Paul addressed people like you, trying to bring
> the Law into Christian faith.
>
> Galatians 3:1-3
>
> 1) O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey
> the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was
> written among you crucified?
> 2) This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the
> Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
> 3) Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you
> now perfect yourself in the flesh?
Paul was saying that those who believed that circumcision and/or
obeying the Law would be sufficient to bring them salvation, are wrong.
Ruth
>
> It doesn't apply to Christians at all. It also didn't apply
> to Gentiles in the first place.
Absolutely, adult circumcision / conversion was an addition to the Law
that was being suggested for the new gentile believers. The Jerusalem
Council declared it not to be a Law of God, but only a custom of Moses
that should not be followed.
Ruth
>
> "Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law,
> and boast in God;" - Romans 2:17
>
> It was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles.
>
> "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law..."
> - Romans 2:14a
The Mosaic Law was given to the Jews to share with the world. But
gentiles who did not believe in YHVH as there God, would not have
obeyed it. Numbers 15:30-31 shows that believing gentiles were
mandated to obey the Law.
Ruth
>
> And even for the Jews (and note the first verse, in which
> he says, "I speak to those who know the law, which tells
> us that he was speaking to the Jews in that church with
> the following passages and not the Gentiles
If the gentiles were believers in YHVH as their one and only God, they
were obligated to obey the Law so He may have been speaking to some of
them also.
Ruth
> and he is
> teaching them that their rest should not be in the law)...
There is only one Way to be saved. No one can be saved by obeying the
Law.
Ruth
>
> Romans 7:1-6
>
> 1) Or are you ignorant, brothers; for I speak to those
> who know the Law; that the law has dominion over a
> man as long as he lives?
> 2) For the married woman was bound by law to the
> living husband. But if the husband is dead, she is
> set free from the law of her husband.
> 3) So then if, while her husband lives, she is married
> to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But
> if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that
> she is no adulteress by becoming another man's wife.
> 4) So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the
> law by the body of Christ
When we accept Yeshua as our Savior we are no longer under the Law of
Sin and Death.
Ruth
> so that you should be married
> to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we
> should bring forth fruit to God.
We also must accept Yeshua as our Lord, not only as our Savior, so that
we then follow Him and bear fruit.
Ruth
> 5) For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin
> worked in our members through the law to bring forth
> fruit to death.
> 6) But now we having been set free from the Law, having
> died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in
> newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
The "Law" here refers to the Law of Sin and death that "we, having been
set free from". (John 3:16). YHVH coming to save us shows how much He
loves us. When we realize that, our obedience and works are done
through that attitude of thankfulness and love for Him. That is the
only way we will truely follow Him without any wish to ever go our own
inferior way.
Ruth
>
> Paul made a very clear point here. He used the law
> regarding marriage and adultery, to show that it is
> impossible that Christians are still under the Law.
> The very thing that you seek to bind them to.
You have interpreted Paul through you antinomian mind set. This is
what Peter warned against. 1John 5:3 shows that John, the beloved
disciple, also agrees.
Ruth
>
> Paul first shows in many places, that the Law applied
> to Jews. He is however, also addressing Jews in this
> church, as is evident by the many Jewish tones of his
> letter.
>
> Anyway, he shows that they used to be bound by law,
> to the Law, just as a wife is bound to her husband for
> as long as he lives (we are the bride in this illustration).
>
> However, he shows that since the old man has died,
> that we are no longer bound under that Law. He shows
> very clearly, that if the old man who was under the Law
> had not died, that for us to be the bride of Christ, which
> is what the church is, would be to commit adultery.
Yeshua = YHVH saves. YHVH is the one who is coming, according to
Zech.14, to Mt. Zion as Yeshua said He was going to do. YHVH is
Yeshua. Yeshua is YHVH. Obedience to the Law of God is obedience to
the Law of YHVH. Obedience to the Law of God is obedience to the Law
of Yeshua. The Mosaic Law is the Law of God. There is NO adultery
happening here! You have misinterpreted this analogy.
Ruth
>
> Do you understand that? Sit back and let the impact
> of that really sink in!
>
> If we are the bride of Christ, we are adulteresses, if we
> have not indeed died to the Law. So why do you
> advocate committing adultery?
So, when Yeshua said that the greatest Law was to love YHVH with all
your heart... (Deut.6) and the #2 Law was to love your neighbor as
yourself Lev.19. both part of the Mosaic Law, He was telling you to
commit adultery?
Ruth
>
> Thus, the Law is not over us in any way, shape or form.
> To claim that it is, is to claim that we are adulteresses.
> We cannot be married to the Law and married to Christ.
>
> Thus, either the old man that was bound under the Law
> is dead and that legal binding with it and we are free to
> be married to Christ, or that old man is not dead and we
> are still bound under the Law and have no claim of being
> in Christ to make. It is that simple and Paul used that
> example to illustrate exactly that point.
You are wrong because you do not love YHVH. 1John 5:3.
Ruth
>
> There is no legal claim of the Law to make. The old man
> that was bound under the Law is not just mortally wounded,
> but still hanging on to a piece of that life. He is dead.
> And if that is not the case for you, then you seek to commit
> adultery and the Lord will not have you. You choose.
In Rev.14:12, Yeshua says the saints are those who obey the
commandments of God and have the faith of Yeshua.
Ruth
>
> This is why Paul wrote what he did in Romans 7:13-25.
> He was not describing his present state, but rather,
> his state when he was living under the Law.
Paul continued to obey the Mosaic Law.
Ruth
> And what
> were his last words in that section?
>
> Romans 7:24-25a
>
> 24) O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me
> from the body of this death?
> 25a) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
>
> Read it carefully. He wasn't seeking an answer to his
> present state. He was showing what the answer was
> to his previous state, while under the Law. And what
> was his answer to his problem?...
>
> "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
>
> Jesus was his answer, to deliver him from the body of sin
> that he had formerly lived in.
>
> Paul taught us that the old man died on the cross with
> Christ. I am not "just an old sinner, like everyone else,
> except that I'm forgiven". That is blasphemy!
Yeshua died for our salvation. Only a man as pure as Adam before the
fall can have salvation.
Ruth
>
> I am a new creature in Christ and that "old sinner"
> died on that cross with Christ. So "it is no longer
> I that lives, but Christ that lives within me".
Even with Yeshua or the Holy Spirit living in you and guiding you, you
still sin and need to ask for forgiveness. You do not have to ask
again for eternal life if you believe Yeshua died for you but you need
to ask for forgiveness when you mess up and do not do what God wants
you to do. We are still humans who mess up. We many times .follow
our own way and do not give heed to the Spirit we have been given
What does God want you to do, may be the question you need to answer.
God said His Laws He gave through Moses were good (Paul also confirmed
this) and were given as a guide for the good of Israel and others they
shared them with. You seem to be saying that God changed His mind and
now declares them no longer good. I cannot find hat in Scripture.
Ruth
>
> I am a child of God, free to run up and jump in Dad's lap
> and share in the joy that He has given me, which comes
> from Him and what He has done through His Son and
> through His Holy Spirit in my heart.
I, who obey the Mosaic Law, and have accepted Yeshua as my Lord and
Savior, do likewise. Are you suggesting that I cannot?
Ruth
>
> I do not "obey" because I'm afraid of some bug guy running
> behind me with his big wooden spoon, ready to smack me
> with it if I do something wrong. (:
I obey, not because I am afraid, but because Yeshua said, "I live not
by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God". I
believe His Laws were given because He loved me and wanted me to live a
good life here on earth before I come to be with Him. His Laws are
wise and good and His Holy Words.
Ruth
>
> I live to serve God, because the love in my heart draws me
> to that life. I pay no attention to what the Law says,
It is the Word of God.
Ruth
> because it is not something that I have to worry about and
> I know that each day, I live for Him and that if I do make a
> mistake, I have an advocate with the Father and that I can
> *BOLDLY* come to the throne of grace, because of His
> sacrifice for me.
Amen. Halleluia!
> I am His son, not a wicked soldier that
> has to be kept in line and shown a list of regulations that
> I must fear. That is not salvation. That is tyranny. (:
For a father to tell His child to look right and left before she
crosses the street, is tyranny? For YHVH to tell His children to not
eat roadkill, not marry their siblings, rest on the seventh day of
Creation, etc. is tyranny? Which Laws of God are tyrannical?
Ruth
>
> --
>
<snipped>
Pastor Dave
<mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
I didn't say it was and that has nothing to do with what I
said. You people who preach being under the Law can't seem
to grasp the simple concept of liberty, not license. You
also contradict yourselves. We are either under the Law,
which means all of it, including sacrifices for sin, or we
are not under any of it.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim that Jesus freed you from the penalty of the
Law and yet, we are under the Law.
You can't claim that we have to do the Law, including ritual
Law and then say that we don't have to perform sacrifices
for sin.
You are either under the Law, or you are not. You cannot
claim Jesus and also claim to have to do all of the Law,
when that would include sacrifices for sin. All is all, so
take your pick. Under the Law, or not under the Law.
Pastor Dave
<mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>What is the Law of Sin and Death? It is not the Mosaic Law!
Yes, it is. Paul was a Pharisee. That is what he was
referring to. Don't play games with me.
ruth
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 08:24:13 -0800, "ruth"
> <mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> On 17 Nov 2005 04:24:09 -0800, "gedalyah"
> >> <aba...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >>
> >> >Read The Bible wrote:
> >> >> > Messiah did not come to do away with the Law
> >> >>
> >> >> (Not before He fulfilled it)
> >> > lol this is a trap. Neither before nor after.Was the twisted oral
> >> >instruction (interpretation) of the Torah that he faught all the way
> >> >down. And He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing that) :He
> >> >gave the real , the truthfully interpretation as G-d intented and
> >> >spelled it to Moshe long before. There is no law that Yeshua erased.
> >> >Not even the ceremonial law: remember that we all enter presence of
> >> >Almighty by the blood of the Lamb and we have a mediator in the
> >> >heavenly Temple, Yeshua haMashiah the High Priest.
Yeshua is the mediator of the New Covenant.
A promise does not need a mediator. John 3:16 was a promise. There is
no negotiation possible. Our works or our past sins don't play a part
in whether we are saved. If we want to have Buddah or rabbi Schernson
be our Messiah won't work. There is only one Way. Yeshua was that
Way. That way was His dying in place of us. He isn't the mediator for
salvation. YHVH so loved the world that He sent Yeshua. It was His
Way. We don't need to have a mediator argue for us to YHVH. We just
needed one to die for us.
The New covenant (Jer.31) is made with Israel and Jacob. That will
come in place when Yeshua returns.
Ruth
> >>
> >> Fulfilled means filled. It is over.
Gal.6:2 says "Bear each others burdens and so fulfill the Law of
Christ". So you are saying that Law was fulfilled when it was done one
time and is over?
Are you saying, therefore that all the OT prophecy that hasn't been
fulfilled yet is over?
Are you saying that Revelation is not prophecy?
Ruth
> >>
> >> You say, "even the ritual laws" are still active. Then you
> >> spit in the face of Jesus Christ, since you then also must
> >> perform the sacrifices for sin, when the Bible clearly
> >> teaches that Jesus is the one time sacrifice.
> >>
> >> "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
> >> forever, sat down on the right hand of God;" - Hebrews 10:12
> >
> >Yes, Yeshua paid the price for our sins. We were under a death sentence
> >if we committed even one sin, as Adam did. When we did, forgiven or
> >not, we became a sinner and subject to the death penalty and exclusion
> >from Paradise and the tree of everlasting life.
> >Yeshua, the Promised Seed of Gen.3, came to pay that death penalty for
> >us so that (John 3:16) by believing we might have everlasting life.
> >That's what His death on the cross purchased for us. It wasn't a
> >license to sin, that grace may abound.
>
> I didn't say it was and that has nothing to do with what I
> said.
What is sin? It is disobeying the Law of God.
Ruth
> You people who preach being under the Law can't seem
> to grasp the simple concept of liberty, not license.
David in Psalm 119:44-45 speaks of liberty by keeping YHVH's Law. Read
the whole Psalm and see how David loved YHVH's Law and how he said it
would last forever (160).
Ruth
>You
> also contradict yourselves. We are either under the Law,
> which means all of it, including sacrifices for sin, or we
> are not under any of it.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
We are under it all. We cannot do the animal sacrifices because there
is no Temple but if there was one, as it was in Heb.8:4 and Acts 21:26,
we would need to do them.
Ruth
>
> You can't claim that Jesus freed you from the penalty of the
> Law and yet, we are under the Law.
"Under" implies a burden. YHVH's Law is not a burden. Jer.23:33-40.
Yeshua freed us from the death penalty we are under since Adam sinned.
During Noah's day the Law we had to obey was the Noahide Law of Gen.9.
If we sinned by breaking one of these Laws, we became a sinner. Those
laws are still in place. (Also the Abrahamic covenant is still in
place. Neither covenant was destroyed when another came along. ) God's
Laws are forever. We have the Mosaic Law also from YHVH. He expects
us to do as He has said. If He is your Lord, and you know He is your
heavenly Father, you will obey every one that you can. And guess what?
You will be blessed. Just as He promised.
Ruth
>
> You can't claim that we have to do the Law, including ritual
> Law and then say that we don't have to perform sacrifices
> for sin.
We can't because YHVH said there was only one place where He allowed
sacrifices to be done and that is in Israel. To do them we would need
an altar on the site of the previous altar, a Levitic priest, and a red
heifer to cleanse the altar. It is not in place yet.
Ruth
>
> You are either under the Law, or you are not. You cannot
> claim Jesus and also claim to have to do all of the Law,
> when that would include sacrifices for sin.
Why not? Paul did. Peter did. John did. James did.
Ruth
> All is all, so take your pick.
If you continue to sin, you continue to need forgiveness. That will
continue until you die or Yeshua returns.
When you die you will go to Paradise, as a sinless person because
Yeshua died to take that "bill of indebtedness" away (Col.2:14).
Ruth
> Under the Law, or not under the Law.
Under. I love God therefore I will obey His commandments and His
commandments are not burdensome. 1John 5:3. Do you love God?
Ruth
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
<snipped>
Pastor Dave
<mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Questions from you do not solve your problem.
You are trying to ignore the problem.
Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
pointed out.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
Flowerchild
Someone asked Jesus "what good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life"? ..Jesus said "keep the commandments". They asked "Which
ones?" and mentioned 6 that are unique to loving other people, even 7 :
*Mat 19:16-19 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that
is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He
saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt
not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:34-40 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the
Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them,
which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
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.
How do we tell Christ we love him ?
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Which of the 10 did Jesus leave out, and why?
1. Don't worship statues made of wood or anything else, and call them
your God!
Why? Because maybe that one had no problem with it. A long time ago
idiots did that, maybe not so much in his time, and not so much
anymore. It was plain stupid to do so, and Christ foreseen the day when
it would not be so common and accepted, or such a big problem as it was
100s of years before Christ.
2. Don't use the name of Jehova your God irreverently, nor use it to
swear to a falsehood. You will not escape punishment if you do.
Why? Because God sent his Holy Spirit in Jesus time, to cut both ways,
the Holy Spirit now becoming a most Holy presence that moves and cuts
to the heart of the speaker of such foolishness. Jesus said anything we
might say to offend the name of Yehovah or Yehoshua may be forgiven us,
but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
3. Remember the Sabbath, keep it Holy and rest.
Why? The Sabbath was not given for God to demand praise on a certain
day, but for Mankind to keep their minds on God, remember all he has
done and made...AND REST. The sabbath was made for man, not God Jesus
said. Jesus became our rest from the burden of the Law, And in
believing (trusting) upon Christ as a rememberance of the greatest work
of God for mankind, redemption of souls, Christ is even greater than
the Sabbath.
So listen up you Jew of Judaism, and beast of burdens, you who are
overwhelmed and overwhelm others with 613 traditions of men, and even
you God-less heathens...It is not so hard to please God, just 7 fair
requests were made, and it is as easy as loving God and other people,
because if you love your neighbor (everyone), you will not murder them,
sleep with their spouse, steal from them, lie to them, or even
purposely bring shame to your mom and dad...if you truly love them as
Christ loved us.
And if you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind like Christ
asked, you will not seek to offend him, put anything above him, or use
his name irreverently by swearing to falsehoods in the name of the good
LORD.
If you mess up--fess up, take responsibility, ask to be forgiven, and
just for the asking in Jesus' name with a sincere heart, being sorry
for that sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins when we
confess them to the LORD in prayer.
(No need to buy a lamb and sacrifice it anymore, Jesus became that
Lamb of God, a final sin offering for mankind. There is no other name
which we may call upon for the forgiveness of sins, and there is no
forgiveness of sins without Christ.)
Flowerchild
gedalyah
in some "original" way so just play the game you want to. I dont
wonder why they dont pay you in that church. Is Paul, the messianic
believer now, that brings offerings in the temple that required blood
from birds . Either u dont read that passage or u want to believe that
was never wrote. And is the blood of Mashiah that gives u the
permission NOW to enter in the presence of G-d so its pretty "old"
ritual in my eyes.So bye bye wise one . By the way why dont you get a
real job?
ruth
You snipped my answer to that question which you asked, a little
differently, before.
My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
a child of God I must obey Him.
Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
I would do them.
Does that answer your question?
Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
and Rev.14:12?
Ruth
>
ruth
> Someone asked Jesus "what good thing shall I do, that I may have
> eternal life"? ..Jesus said "keep the commandments". They asked "Which
> ones?" and mentioned 6 that are unique to loving other people, even 7 :
How are you saved? Do you believe John 3:16?
Ruth
>
>
> *Mat 19:16-19 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master,
> what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said
> unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that
> is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Notice that Yeshua did not answer "...but if you will enter into
everlasting life...".
And He first asked the man the important question of who the man
thought He was.
And when the man questioned Him further, Yeshua gave him one of the
commandments He knew he was not keeping, "love your neighbor as
yourself". When the man said he was keeping the laws Yeshua had
mentioned, Yeshua pointed out that he was not. Then Yeshua gave him
the answer that he really was after, "Come and follow Me." But with
that, the man went away.
Ruth
> He
> saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt
> not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
> witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
> neighbour as thyself.
Those were enough to convict the man.
It even convicted the apostles who were following Yeshua. They said
that they could not be perfect in obedience either. But Yeshua
answered them that man is not perfect but God has made a Way for man to
be saved. He was that Way.
Ruth
>
>
> Mat 22:34-40 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the
> Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them,
> which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
> Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him,
> Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
> soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
> 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.
But He did not say that obeying those two meant that you could throw
out all the Laws God had delienated that fall under them. Those two
Laws were two of the Laws within Mosaic Law. They were the most
important because if you loved God with all your heart, mind, soul and
strength, there is no way you would not obey every command that He had
given. 1John 5:3. One of the Laws within the Mosaic Law was not to
add or take away from the Laws that were given. Yeshua strongly
condemned the pharisees for doing this. We tend to think that He only
condemned them for adding to the Law, but He also condemned them for
taking away from the Law.
Ruth
>
>
> How do we tell Christ we love him ?
> Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Do you believe that Yeshua and YHVH are one? The Law given through
Moses came from God (Yeshua, YHVH, the Ruach haKodesh.
Ruth
>
>
>
> Which of the 10 did Jesus leave out, and why?
>
>
> 1. Don't worship statues made of wood or anything else, and call them
> your God!
>
> Why? Because maybe that one had no problem with it.
You are joking, right. They were occupied by the Romans who believed
in many gods and even mandated the worship of Caesar as a god.
Worshipping idols could not be tossed aside. Yeshua even in Revelation
2 condemned the practice of eating things sacrificed to idols.
Ruth
> A long time ago
> idiots did that, maybe not so much in his time, and not so much
> anymore. It was plain stupid to do so, and Christ foreseen the day when
> it would not be so common and accepted, or such a big problem as it was
> 100s of years before Christ.
You are wrong. What about Buddists?
Ruth
>
> 2. Don't use the name of Jehova your God irreverently, nor use it to
> swear to a falsehood. You will not escape punishment if you do.
>
> Why? Because God sent his Holy Spirit in Jesus time, to cut both ways,
> the Holy Spirit now becoming a most Holy presence that moves and cuts
> to the heart of the speaker of such foolishness. Jesus said anything we
> might say to offend the name of Yehovah or Yehoshua may be forgiven us,
> but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
So you are saying that those people that curse the name of God are not
doing something that is an anathema to Him? Yeshua said to pray,
"Hallowed be Thy Name".
Ruth
>
>
> 3. Remember the Sabbath, keep it Holy and rest.
>
> Why? The Sabbath was not given for God to demand praise on a certain
> day, but for Mankind to keep their minds on God, remember all he has
> done and made...AND REST. The sabbath was made for man, not God Jesus
> said. Jesus became our rest from the burden of the Law,
Jer.23:32-40. Mathew 4:4. 1John 5:3
Ruth
> And in
> believing (trusting) upon Christ as a rememberance of the greatest work
> of God for mankind, redemption of souls, Christ is even greater than
> the Sabbath.
But for the believer in Yeshua as their Savior and Lord, their is no
way that such a believer could turn from His Father's Words given to
you which Yeshua upheld and walked in. You ask in the Lord's Prayer
for the Father's Kingdom to come and His will to be done. Do you
really mean that?
Ruth
>
> So listen up you Jew of Judaism, and beast of burdens, you who are
> overwhelmed and overwhelm others with 613 traditions of men,
Yes, the pharisaical counting and enumeration of the 613 Laws is wrong.
But the Mosaic Law is a Law which contains Laws that come from the
mouth of God that Yeshua said we are to live by. (Matt.4:4) and Paul
declared Holy, just and good.
Ruth
> and even
> you God-less heathens...It is not so hard to please God, just 7 fair
> requests were made, and it is as easy as loving God and other people,
> because if you love your neighbor (everyone), you will not murder them,
> sleep with their spouse, steal from them, lie to them, or even
> purposely bring shame to your mom and dad...if you truly love them as
> Christ loved us.
But if you love your sister, is it OK to marry her?
Ruth
> And if you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind like Christ
> asked, you will not seek to offend him, put anything above him, or use
> his name irreverently by swearing to falsehoods in the name of the good
> LORD.
But you just prior said it was not so bad to curse YHVH or Yeshua. You
were just not use the Holy Spirit's name in vain.
The trouble with you and many others is that you mix up salvation and
living a Godly life. Once you are saved by belief you are a child of
God and you will do whatever He tells you to do. He has told you how
He expects you to live by the code of conduct He gave through Noah and
Moses and as seen by the example of obedience wherein Yeshua walked.
Ruth
>
> If you mess up--fess up, take responsibility, ask to be forgiven, and
> just for the asking in Jesus' name with a sincere heart, being sorry
> for that sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins when we
> confess them to the LORD in prayer.
Amen. Halleluia!
Ruth
>
>
> (No need to buy a lamb and sacrifice it anymore, Jesus became that
> Lamb of God, a final sin offering for mankind. There is no other name
> which we may call upon for the forgiveness of sins, and there is no
> forgiveness of sins without Christ.)
> Flowerchild
Don't you mean, "There is no other Name by which we can be saved".
I agree that Yeshua/YHVH/the Holy Spirit has assurred us believers
that when we ask to be forgiven in the name of Yeshua we will be
forgiven.
He now is our source of obedience to the Law of sacrifices which we
cannot fulfill.
Those who do not believe in Him, have no assurrance of forgiveness as
they once had through the animal sacrifice system.
Scripture clearly says Paul gave animal sacrifices after he was saved
and there are other Scripture that indicates all the disciples did
likewise.
If the animal sacrifices returned as God instituted them, I would obey
God's Law.
Ruth
Pastor Dave
<mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>> Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
>> animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
>> the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
>> pointed out.
>> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
>to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
>a child of God I must obey Him.
>Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
>against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
>is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
>I would do them.
>Does that answer your question?
>Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
>Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
>and Rev.14:12?
You gave me a direct answer. That's what I was looking for.
Thank you. You are not a Christian. Okay. Now it is clear
and we know where you stand.
You talked around it a bit and that is why I didn't go
through the rest of what you said. Had you been this clear,
I would have also dealt with the rest of your post, as I did
here in this response.
You are assuming that "His Commandments" are the Law.
They aren't. Thus, I have nothing to worry about. God does
not contradict Himself and to say that Jesus is the one time
sacrifice and to say that we are to perform sacrifices, is a
contradiction.
James the Just said the following...
"So speak and do as those who shall be judged
by the Law of liberty." - James 2:12
The Law that you speak of can never be confused with
liberty. The whole idea of the liberty he is speaking of
here, is liberty in Christ, from the Law of sin and death.
Romans 8:1-4
1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to
the flesh but according to the Spirit.
2) But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
made me free from the law of sin and death.
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;
4) so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according
to the Spirit.
Thus, with Christ, the Law is useless.
It says very clearly in Hebrews, that the old system has
been done away with and that Christians are not to observe
it and that it is a useless system, as far as taking away
sins. It says it very clearly.
Hebrews 10:1-12
1) For the Law which has a shadow of good things
to come, not the very image of the things, appearing
year by year with the same sacrifices, which they
offer continually, they are never able to perfect those
drawing near.
2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered?
Because the worshipers, when they had been once
for all purged, would have had no more conscience
of sin.
3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again
of sins every year.
4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins.
5) Therefore when He comes into the world, He says,
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You have
prepared a body for Me.
6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have had
no pleasure.
7) Then I said, Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is
written of Me) to do Your will, O God."
8) Above, when He said, "Sacrifice and offering, and burnt
offerings and offering for sin You did not desire, neither
did You have pleasure in them" (which are offered according
to the Law),
9) then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He
takes away the first so that He may establish the second.
10) By this will we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11) And indeed every priest stands daily ministering and
offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins.
12) But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, sat down on the right of God,
Note: He TAKES AWAY THE FIRST.
Note: ONCE FOR ALL.
The old system is not for Christians and when Christ
returned in judgment, in 70 AD, the old system was
removed physically as well, which is why you don't have
a way to do it.
Note that Paul goes further on to say that the Law
is done away with and that the way is now open
to the Gentiles.
Ephesians 2:13-16
13) But now in Christ Jesus you who were once
afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.
14) For He is our peace, He making us both one,
and He has broken down the middle wall of partition
between us,
15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law
of commandments contained in ordinances) so that
in Himself He might make the two into one new man,
making peace between them;
16) and so that He might reconcile both to God in one
body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.
It says right there that He abolished the Law of
commandments contained in ordinances. So you
do what you want. The Law is done away with.
Jesus said...
"I give you a NEW commandment, that you love one
another. As I have loved you, you should also love
one another." - John 13:34
Jesus told us to love God and for the disciples to love
one another and to love our enemies (two different
kinds of love). Those are the commandments that
He gave us and also gave us more instructions through
His Apostles, as the church grew. So to love Him and
keep His commandments, is to do those things.
Thus, I have answered your question and thank you
for answering mine.
ruth
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2005 06:53:39 -0800, "ruth"
> <mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
> >> animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
> >> the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
> >> pointed out.
> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
> >
> >My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
> >to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
> >a child of God I must obey Him.
> >Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
> >against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
> >is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
> >I would do them.
> >Does that answer your question?
> >Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
> >Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
> >and Rev.14:12?
>
> You gave me a direct answer. That's what I was looking for.
> Thank you. You are not a Christian. Okay. Now it is clear
> and we know where you stand.
Yeshua is my Lord and Savior.
Ruth
>
> You talked around it a bit and that is why I didn't go
> through the rest of what you said. Had you been this clear,
> I would have also dealt with the rest of your post, as I did
> here in this response.
>
> You are assuming that "His Commandments" are the Law.
> They aren't. Thus, I have nothing to worry about. God does
> not contradict Himself and to say that Jesus is the one time
> sacrifice and to say that we are to perform sacrifices, is a
> contradiction.
So Paul was wrong to give sacrifices?
Ruth
>
> James the Just said the following...
>
> "So speak and do as those who shall be judged
> by the Law of liberty." - James 2:12
So David was wrong when he said the Mosaic Law was the Law of liberty?
Ruth
>
> The Law that you speak of can never be confused with
> liberty.
I guess David was confused then and since David's words are Scripture
and your's are the words of men??? Or do you have some other Scripture
to back your words?
Ruth
> The whole idea of the liberty he is speaking of
> here, is liberty in Christ, from the Law of sin and death.
Yeshua, the Promised Seed of Gen.3, came to free us from the death
penalty we were under, the Law of sin and death: If you sin, even once,
you will lose your right to Paradise and the tree of everlasting life.
The Mosaic Law is not the Law of sin and death. David called it the
Law of Liberty. That liberty is found in it's good guidance for the
way to live here on earth. It does not have any provision for gaining
everlasting life! It never did and it never will. There is only one
way to be saved and that is declared in John 3:16. Yeshua is Salvation
and He is my Savior because I have accepted Him as my Lord and Savior.
There is nowhere that Yeshua added or subtracted from the Mosaic Law.
If He had done that He would have been a sinner and not a pure sinless
sacrifice.
If you say that the Mosaic Law was discontinued, then proof would have
to come from outside the gospels as the gospels support continuation of
the Law.
I believe that the rest of the NT also supports that continuation.
Ruth
Ruth
<snipped>
Pastor Dave
<mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2005 06:53:39 -0800, "ruth"
>> <mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >> Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
>> >> animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
>> >> the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
>> >> pointed out.
>> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
>> >
>> >My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
>> >to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
>> >a child of God I must obey Him.
>> >Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
>> >against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
>> >is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
>> >I would do them.
>> >Does that answer your question?
>> >Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
>> >Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
>> >and Rev.14:12?
>>
>> You gave me a direct answer. That's what I was looking for.
>> Thank you. You are not a Christian. Okay. Now it is clear
>> and we know where you stand.
>
>Yeshua is my Lord and Savior.
No, He isn't. Those who have Jesus as their Savior do not
claim that we need to perform sacrifices, if we can.
That claim spits in the face of what Jesus did. The Bible
is clear that Jesus did this to REMOVE the need for ANY
OTHER sacrifice.
YOU claim that God sent His Son to die a horrible death
on the cross, because we need to still do animal sacrifices
for sin.
I don't have any desire to argue this point with you. I
have presented Scriptures which require zero interpretation.
They say flat out that He REMOVED the old system and
that His sacrifice was a ONE TIME sacrifice for ALL sins.
You are no different than the false teacher who were
Judaizers that Paul refuted in Galatians.
Goodbye.
terry
You may already know this, but I thought you would like to know it if
not. Adrian Rodgers passed away. They held his memorial yesterday, I
believe it was. A close friend of mine told me and I thought I would
pass that along. Take care....
In Christ,
Terry Ivy
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
Bummer! Well, we know where he is anyway. :)
"Dr. Rogers succumbed to pneumonia after battling cancer
that was diagnosed soon after his March 2005 retirement from
32 years as pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis
Tennessee. One of America’s largest churches, Bellevue has
more than 29,000 members and a ministry that reaches around
the world. The church grew and thrived under the dynamic
preaching and loving pastoral care of Dr. Rogers. He was
named Pastor Emeritus of the church at his retirement."
http://www.adrianrogers.org/obituary.htm
I really enjoyed his preaching!
ruth
> >
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> On 18 Nov 2005 06:53:39 -0800, "ruth"
> >> <mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
> >> >> animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
> >> >> the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
> >> >> pointed out.
> >> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
> >> >
> >> >My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
> >> >to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
> >> >a child of God I must obey Him.
> >> >Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
> >> >against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
> >> >is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
> >> >I would do them.
> >> >Does that answer your question?
> >> >Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
> >> >Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
> >> >and Rev.14:12?
> >>
> >> You gave me a direct answer. That's what I was looking for.
Then why didn't you answer my question?
Ruth
> >> Thank you. You are not a Christian. Okay. Now it is clear
> >> and we know where you stand.
> >
> >Yeshua is my Lord and Savior.
>
> No, He isn't. Those who have Jesus as their Savior do not
> claim that we need to perform sacrifices, if we can.
>
> That claim spits in the face of what Jesus did. The Bible
> is clear that Jesus did this to REMOVE the need for ANY
> OTHER sacrifice.
You didn't answer when I asked you to explain why Paul gave sacrifices.
Ruth
>
> YOU claim that God sent His Son to die a horrible death
> on the cross, because we need to still do animal sacrifices
> for sin.
Animal sacrifices were not for salvation!
Do you still sin? Do you ask for forgiveness when you do? If Yeshua's
death paid the price for all your sins, why do you still need to ask
forgiveness, when you sin?
Yeshua, when He was here on earth, forgave sins without animal
sacrifice and even before His sacrifice. Why then was His sacrifice
needed? Why not just say, I forgive you all. Did the people whose sins
He forgave while here on earth need His sacrifice? Did Zachariah and
Elizabeth who were blameless and righteous under the Law, need His
sacrifice?
Yeshua's sacrifice on the cross was more that forgiveness from daily
sins or specific sins that the animal sacrifices and Yeshua's forgiving
people while He was here were about.
If you look at Lev.16:30 it says that a person, if they did as they
were directed concerning Yom Kippur, were cleansed from all their sins.
Did this mean that they could go past the angel into Paradise? No.
There is only one way to return to Paradise and everlasting life,
through the blood of Yeshua. Yeshua's blood sacrifice was different
from all the other sacrifices. It had a specialness of purpose no
other sacrifice fulfilled. Yes, to achieve that purpose, a person's
sins needed to be forgiven. They needed to be clean. But they needed
something else that no animal sacrifice or no God given forgiveness
could produce. It was the payment for the death penalty all sinners
are under. It was the only Way to have that death penalty revoked.
That way was promised in Gen. 3.
That's why the people who do not accept Yeshua cannot say that they
know YHVH is love so even if they don't believe, they will repent and
ask Him to forgive them and He will be His merciful forgiving self, and
not send them to Hell.
The animal sacrifices and even Yeshua or YHVH's forgiveness were not
sufficient for everlasting life. It took His death.
So why did God even start the animal sacrifice system? It was to show
how much hurt your disobedience caused Him. It was so severe that you
deserved to die just like that animal. It wasn't the eating of the
apple that sent man out of Paradise. It was man's mistrust of God's
love. He didn't believe God's rule was a gift of love.
So the animal sacrific system was a way to bring people who wandered
from the flock, back to the care of the shepherd. It was a good system
that provided a vivid lesson and assurred forgiveness and return,
tarnished but safe.
But tarnished sheep are not what God created to be in His perfect
world. We are all tarnished. And there is no way to remove that
tarnish except through the blood of Yeshua.
I am saved by that blood, even though you don't believe it.
But if My Loving Heavenly father says go back to animal sacrifices, I
will obey for He is My Father. I will do anything that He tells me to
do. For it is good. Within His fold I am at perfect liberty. Just as
David said.
It's funny. You tell me I am not saved because I would obey the Law of
God and the unbelieving Jews say I am satan because I hand out
brochures from Jews for Jesus and tell them Yeshua is their Messiah.
It's hard being a saint. Rev.14:12, "This calls for patient endurance
of the saints, those who obey the commandments of God and have the
faith of Yeshua."
Ruth
>
> I don't have any desire to argue this point with you. I
> have presented Scriptures which require zero interpretation.
> They say flat out that He REMOVED the old system and
> that His sacrifice was a ONE TIME sacrifice for ALL sins.
>
> You are no different than the false teacher who were
> Judaizers that Paul refuted in Galatians.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> Preaching the truth of Scripture,
> from Creation to Revelation!
Except for 1 John 5:3 and Rev.14:12.
gedalyah
ruth
reply to me. He did attempt to answer my questions to him about 1John
5:3 and Rev. 14:12. I accused him of not replying.
I will address that answer in my next post.
Ruth
ruth wrote:
> > >
> > >Pastor Dave wrote:
> > >> On 18 Nov 2005 06:53:39 -0800, "ruth"
> > >> <mrut...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> Now choose. Which is it? Will you continue to sacrifice
> > >> >> animals for sin? Or will you say that we are not under
> > >> >> the Law. The Law is not pick and choose, as you yourself
> > >> >> pointed out.
> > >> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
> > >> >
> > >> >My answer is, I will obey the whole Law of God. Every jot and tittle
> > >> >to the best of my ability. Not a jot or tittle has been destroyed. As
> > >> >a child of God I must obey Him.
> > >> >Specific to the animal sacrifice laws, first, is the prohibition
> > >> >against giving them except where they are allowed to be given, so there
> > >> >is no way I am allowed to do it. If there was a correct place set up,
> > >> >I would do them.
> > >> >Does that answer your question?
> > >> >Now, since I answered your question, will you not also answer mine?
> > >> >Do you love God and if you say that you do, how do you answer 1John 5:3
> > >> >and Rev.14:12?
> > >>
> > >> You gave me a direct answer. That's what I was looking for.
>
> Then why didn't you answer my question?
> Ruth
>
><snipped>
Sam Taylor
Your right David G-d doesn't want you to Please him,
for that He will utterly destroy anyone who tries!
after all he gave the law, and feast's to fool the People.
So that He could choose a People whom seek only to please themselves,
and think Singing Songs about themselves, is worship, and following
him.
After all how else would the get the Announcements.
is that what your saying?
psalmsmith
Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Not true. There are several other sacrifices detailed for us in the
Brit Chadasha (New Testiment) if we are to be righteous followers of
Messiah.
Hebrews 13:15-16 "By him therefore let us offer the
sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of
our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to
communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well
pleased." (KJV)
1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a
spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (KJV)
Philippians 4:17-19 "Not because I desire a gift: but I
desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all,
and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the
things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a
sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. But my God shall
supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ
Jesus." (KJV)
Romans 12:1 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the
mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
(KJV)
Mark 9:49-50 "For every one shall be salted with fire,
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but
if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it?
Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another." (KJV)
Therefore we know that the statement that 'there is no longer any need
for any sacrifice' is wrong. What of the sacrifice of praise? What of
the sacrifice of ourselves? What of the sacrifice of our giving?
All these are sacrifices that we have been instructed to perform now
that Messiah has returned again to the realm of eternity and awaits His
being sent again by the Father.
> YOU claim that God sent His Son to die a horrible death
> on the cross, because we need to still do animal sacrifices
> for sin.
Of course there is no more sacrifice for sins, Messiah offered up
Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for the remission of sins, and
therefore there is no more sacrifice, for where there is remission of
sins, there is no more offering for them, they are remitted.
But there are other offerings that are accomplished, such as the
offering Paul gave:
Acts 24:16-19 "And herein do I exercise myself, to have
always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and
offerings. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in
the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. Who ought
to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought
against me." (KJV)
Wherein he brought alms and offerings to the Temple. If giving an
offering we really to be considered a mark of someone who is not a
follower of Messiah, and we see Paul here bringing an offering to the
Temple, are you prepared therefore to say that Paul was not a follower
of Messiah?
> I don't have any desire to argue this point with you. I
> have presented Scriptures which require zero interpretation.
> They say flat out that He REMOVED the old system and
> that His sacrifice was a ONE TIME sacrifice for ALL sins.
It is true that there are those amongst the Hebrew Roots movement who do
misunderstand the application of sacrifice and offering now that Messiah
has come and gone, but it is also true that you cling to a deeper
misunderstanding of what is written than they do.
If someone desires to please God, and acts upon that desire though there
were some error in the grain of his intent so as to make an offering for
sin instead of making an offering for the lost or the poor or
whathaveyou, this does not mean that he becomes opposed to Messiah, or
not a follower of God, as you have indicated.
But unrighteously judging someone as condemned, even going so far as to
condemn someone for their desire to please God, may well lead to such an
end.
This would be tragic, not only for you and those who love you, but also
for those of us including myself who really want to be there to see your
face in Heaven when all truth is opened up for you and you learn what
really is right and what really is wrong.
> You are no different than the false teacher who were
> Judaizers that Paul refuted in Galatians.
>
> Goodbye.
I am sorry, but I do not gind the word "Judaizers" anywhere in the
Bible, and certainly not in Galatians. Was this word intended as some
kind of slur which referrs to a different word used in the scripture
itself?
Searching for "jud*" in Galatians reveals:
Ga 1:22* And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were
in Christ:
Ga 5:10* I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none
otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment,
whosoever he be.
Perhaps you can enlighten me? And maybe this time leave out the racial
slur.
Shalom!
Glen
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>certainly not in Galatians
Ah ha. One that attempts to lessen the Messiah's teachings ...
... in order to elevate another's. BTW, is your name Paul or Saul?
Your x-ray's are ready to pickup. They reveal nothing inside. ;-)
psalmsmith
"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Messiah taught in Matthew 5 not only that not one
> > yud or vav should be removed from the law until
> > heaven and earth had passed away
>
> 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.
>
> And he said unto them, These are the words which I
> spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
> things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
> law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
> concerning me. Then opened he their understanding,
> that they might understand the scriptures, And said
> unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
> Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
> day.
Messiah is God, and the law of Moses describes the nature of God. All
of scripture from Beresheit (Gebesis) to Apokalypsis (Revelation)
describe God and Messiah. Which is one reason why I find it odd that
the Church would reject Mosaic law, seeing that time and again Messiah
has stated that it describes HIM.
> In him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the
> Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is
> the head of all principality and power: In whom also
> ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
> hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the
> flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him
> in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
> through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
> raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your
> sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
> quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
> trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of
> ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
> us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his
> cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers,
> he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them
> in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in
> drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new
> moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of
> things to come; but the body is of Christ.
>
Yes, Messiah gave the complete interpretation of all that was written,
including explaining how the Mosaic law was to be interpreted today. He
didn't make it easier you know, He raised the bar. No longer do we read
"You shall do no murder" and think this is a prohibition only against
unlawful killing, but we understand today that it is likewise a
prohibition against harboring enmity and hatred in our hearts for our
fellow man. For if we hate our brother without cause, then we are just
as guilty as if we had murdered him.
The circumcision in the flesh was always a token of the circumcision of
the heart. Even in Moses' day, if you were not circumcised in the
heart, then the circumcision in the flesh was nothing. Today, we are
still required to be circumcised in the heart, that has not changed. If
we are hardened of heart, especially towards God, then we have violated
His teaching on circumcision.
The circumcision that is made without hands was ALWAYS the real
circumcision that mattered. And it remains today the real circumcision
that matters.
God's teachings were not the 'handwriting' that Paul is speaking about
above. The 'handwriting' spoken about above is the "hedge" of
protection that the scribes and Pharisees authored around the law that
caused the people only to interpret it's surface and to have no access
to the life which lay beneath the surface.
And you likewise have abrogated the very passage you quote by judging ME
in respect of the holy days. For I have not judged you regarding which
days you have chosen to keep holy, but by indicating that I am wrong to
observe the Biblical Holy Days, you have passed judgement on me for
choosing to keep them.
Therefore as the passage you quoted indicates, I should let no man judge
me in respect to the Holy Days, which command I am fulfilling now by
setting you straight as to why it is God's desire for us to observe
those days.
Shalom!
Glen
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>Messiah is God
Matthew 26:53 (KJV)
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
John 14:16 (KJV)
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;
Looney Tunes ( looneytunes.warnerbros.com )
psalmsmith
"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you reject even the least important command
>
> Ye have heard that it hath been said (in the Mosaic
> Law), An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
> But I (Jesus) say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
> but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
> turn to him the other also.
Again you have erred in misunderstanding what is written in the Mosaic
law. The same misunderstanding of Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24 that has
led yo to reject the teaching, is the same misunderstanding hat the
scribes and the Pharisees embraced which Messiah taught against in
Matthew 5:38 which you quote above.
The scribed and Pharisees mosinterpreted Exo 21 and Lev 24, either
intentionally or unintentionally, to say that if someone takes your eye,
then you take his eye. If someone takes your tooth, then you take his
tooth.
But READ those two chapters, and you will see that thai is not so at
all. Read them praying to God with a desire to understand what was
actually written.
In Exodus 21:22-29, God and Moses is teaching how intent plays a part in
understanding tort in the law. It says that if a pregnant woman is
accidentally hurt (without intent) so that she loses her baby, then the
person who hurt her must pay a fine, but that if she is intentionally
hurt so that she loses the baby, then the person who hurt her should be
put to death, because he has committed murder. A life for a life. This
is more an indication that a baby is life within the mothers womb than
an indication that one sin should be balanced against another.
And then it goes on to explain why it is not sinful for a man to be put
to death for having intentionally hurt a pregnant woman so that she
loses her baby:
Exodus 21:22-25 "ŒAnd when men strive, and have smitten a
pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no
mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman
doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; and if
there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (YLT)
Then Moses explains how this is what people customarily do:
Exodus 21:26, 27 "ŒAnd when a man smiteth the eye of his
man-servant, or the eye of his handmaid, and hath destroyed it,
as a freeman he doth send him away for his eye; and if a tooth
of his man-servant or a tooth of his handmaid he knock out, as a
freeman he doth send him away for his tooth."
And then he returns to his teaching on intent, saying that if an ox
gores a perso to death, and the owner had no idea that the ox would
behave that way, the ox is put to death and the owner is not giolty, but
if the ox gores someone to death, and the owner knew ahead of time that
the ox was disposed to do such a thing, that he was likewise guilty of
that persons death:
Exodus 21:28, 29 "ŒAnd when an ox doth gore man or woman,
and they have died, the ox is certainly stoned, and his flesh is
not eaten, and the owner of the ox is acquitted; and if the ox
is one accustomed to gore heretofore, and it hath been testified
to its owner, and he doth not watch it, and it hath put to death
a man or woman, the ox is stoned, and its owner also is put to
death."
The chapter is not teaching about retribution, it is speaking to how
intent plays a part in law, and in the weight of punishent that should
be handed down in the law.
We do this today in our modern justice system. Killing a man with
intent is murder, but killing a man without intent is manslaughter. And
the intent of the crime likewise changes the degree...murder in the
first degree, second degree, third degree. First degree manslaughter,
second degree, third degree.
All these are judgements of intent, and the punishment is affected
according to the intent.
And THAT is what is being taught here in Exodus 21. Not retribution as
you and the Pharisees apparently believe.
This is exactly what I have been saying for the longest time, the vast
majority of those in the Church today who reject Mosaic law, hold the
same misinterpretation of it that the scribes and the Phariees did in
Messiah's day.
And Leviticus 24 is not talking about retribution either.
It is talking about "equality under the law" a concept which we
Americans seem to believe we are pioneers in, but here is is thousands
of years before America was even dreamed of.
Moses is saying that whether the person guilty is a native of Israel, or
someone who is sojurning with Israel, they are noth under the same law,
and that the punishment must fit the crime:
Leviticus 24:16-22 "and he who is execrating the name of
Jehovah is certainly put to death; all the company do certainly
cast stones at him; as a sojourner so a native, in his
execrating the Name, is put to death. ŒAnd when a man smiteth
any soul of man, he is certainly put to death. ŒAnd he who
smiteth a beast repayeth it, body for body. ŒAnd when a man
putteth a blemish in his fellow, as he hath done so it is done
to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he
putteth a blemish in a man so it is done in him. ŒAnd he who
smiteth a beast repayeth it, and he who smiteth the life of man
is put to death; one judgment is to you; as a sojourner so is a
native; for I am Jehovah your God.¹" (YLT)
Clearly, Moses is not teaching that retribution is righteous. He is
teaching two concepts here which our government still clings to today,
one that all people whether native or not must be treated equally under
the law, and two that the punishment must fit the crime...that a
punishment that is too severe for the crime is not good, and neither is
a punishment that is too light for the crime good.
The Pharisees misinterpreted these passages to make retribution legal.
They were never intended to say such a thing, and Messiah explained that
they were wrong. You likewise are misinterpreting them IN THE SAME WAY
that the Pharisees did, believing that these passages are telling Israel
that when someone gouges out their eye, the malefactor should be held
down and have his eye gouged out likewise.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
> The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and
> saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
> his wife for every cause? And he answered and said
> unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
> at the beginning made them male and female, And said,
> For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
> and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be
> one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one
> flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
> not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses
> then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
> put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of
> the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
> your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And
> I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> except it be for fornication, and shall marry
> another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her
> which is put away doth commit adultery.
Indeed, but this was in Deuteronomy, where Moses added certain things of
his own, and Moses also went on to explain that once a man did such a
thing that if she married another man who later dies, and she tries to
come back to her first husband that he can not marry her again.
Clearly Moses was indicating that the man who wrote such a bill of
divorcement so that his wife married another man, even if she became a
widow then the first man would be committing adultery to return to his
wife afterwards.
Clearly Moses knew and indicated in the text that this was wrong, and as
Messiah explains, he put this in Deuteronomy (Moses' retelling of how to
apply the law) for the hardness of their hearts. But such a thing is
not found anywhere else BUT Deuteronomy. Were it God's law, then the
root of De 24:1-4 would have been found in Leviticus or Numbers, which
it is not.
You have to understand how Torah works. Leviticus and Numbers lay out
God's law, and in Deuteronomy Moses delivers a series of sermons in his
own words concerning how to apply the law to ourselves.
Did you know that Messiah quoted Deuteronomy more than any other work in
scripture? The words of Messiah contain twice as many quotes from
Deuteronomy as from any other passage. And those quotes explain what is
right, not what is wrong.
Moses knew that divorce was wrong, and therefore he explained that it
was an abomination for the divorced woman who marries another, even if
she becomes a widow cannot marry the first man again.
> And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the
> first, that he went through the corn fields; and his
> disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat,
> rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the
> Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is
> not lawful to do on the sabbath days? And Jesus
> answering them said, Have ye not read so much as
> this, what David did, when himself was an hungred,
> and they which were with him; How he went into the
> house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and
> gave also to them that were with him; which it is
> not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? And he
> said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of
> the sabbath.
>
The above passage is simply an expansion on how Messiah has interpreted
the law for us. It is not about the superficial text, but about the
concepts which the law teaches.
In fact, Messiah was explaining how David truly understood the intent
and the proper interpretation of the law, which you do not. Messiah
explained how David took the showbread, which thing was unlawful, but by
doing so he did not actually break the law. This highlights the true
interpretation of the law as defining concepts and revealing the nature
of God, and not as a collection of physical ordinances.
Messiah explained that the Pharisees were misinterpreting the law, and
explained what David had done in eating the showbread to illustrate HOW
the Pharisees were misinterpreting the law.
But you instead seem to think that the Pharisees were interpreting the
law correctly, and Messiah had come to destroy the correct
interpretation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pharisees
were interpreting the law WRONG, and Messiah came to teach the correct
interpretation.
ruth
Revelation 14:12; ((21st Century King James Version)
12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
There is no way to say that this is speaking of the commandments of
Jesus or it would read, "the commandments and faith of Jesus
(Yeshua).
Ruth
1 John 5: 1-15 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God, and every one that loveth Him that begot, loveth Him also that is
begotten by Him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God:
when we love God and keep His commandments. 3For this is the love of
God: that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not
burdensome. 4For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world. And
this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is
he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
Son of God? 6This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus
Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three
that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;
and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness on
earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree
in one. 9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is
greater, for this is the witness of God which He hath testified of His
Son. 10He that believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself;
he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth
not the record that God gave of His Son. 11And this is the record: that
God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He
that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not
life. 13These things I have written unto you that believe in the name
of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe in the name of the Son of God. 14And this is the
confidence that we have in Him: that if we ask anything according to
His will, He heareth us. 15And if we know that He hear us, whatsoever
we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him.
As you can see from the passage, John, in this chapter, clearly has
made a distinction between the three persons of the Trinity. If you
look at any verse "God" refers to the Father, "Yeshua" or
"Son" is the Savior or Word, and even the Holy Spirit is
delineated in verse 7. (5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he
that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? )
There is no way you can say that "His commandments" in verses 2 and
3, refers to commandments given by Yeshua, when in the same verses the
noun is mentioned as God. Even in the preceding chapters, God is
referring to the Father and when the Son is meant, it is clearly
indicated.
Ruth
> Thus, I have nothing to worry about. God does
> not contradict Himself and to say that Jesus is the one time
> sacrifice and to say that we are to perform sacrifices, is a
> contradiction.
What Scripture do you use for a reference for your ststement?
Ruth
>
> James the Just said the following...
>
> "So speak and do as those who shall be judged
> by the Law of liberty." - James 2:12
>
> The Law that you speak of can never be confused with
> liberty. The whole idea of the liberty he is speaking of
> here, is liberty in Christ, from the Law of sin and death.
The Law of Sin and death is not the Mosaic Law.
In Romans 8:22 Paul says, "For I deight in the Law of God according to
the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against
the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members".
And David says that the Mosaic Law is the Law of Liberty. Psalm
119:45.
Ruth
>
> Romans 8:1-4
>
> 1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those
> who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to
> the flesh but according to the Spirit.
> 2) But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
> made me free from the law of sin and death.
> 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;
> 4) so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled
> in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according
> to the Spirit.
>
> Thus, with Christ, the Law is useless.
The Law is not useless! The Law "IS" Holy, just and good, said Paul.
Obedience to the Law prevented trichinosis, genetic diseases, depletion
of the soil, devastation from communicable diseases, poisoning through
tainted roadkill, and much more! Yeshua did not die to bring harm on
His children. He never would have advocated stopping obeying these
Laws and neither would Paul. And he didn't. You are misinterpreting
his writings just as Peter warned against.
Ruth
>
> It says very clearly in Hebrews, that the old system has
> been done away with and that Christians are not to observe
> it and that it is a useless system, as far as taking away
> sins. It says it very clearly.
>
> Hebrews 10:1-12
>
> 1) For the Law which has a shadow of good things
> to come, not the very image of the things, appearing
> year by year with the same sacrifices, which they
> offer continually, they are never able to perfect those
> drawing near.
> 2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered?
> Because the worshipers, when they had been once
> for all purged, would have had no more conscience
> of sin.
Did the forgiveness of sins you received through the death of Yeshua,
take away your ability to sin? Did it take away your "conscience of
sin"? Do you, as those who lived under the animal sacrifice system,
still need to ask for forgiveness year after year? You have not been
perfected while you are still a human in a sinful world. Paul
acknowledges his own sinful state that persisted even after being
filled with the Holy Spirit. But his ultimate punishment for those
sins, death and Hell fire, has been removed through the atoning death
of Yeshua. Halleluia!
Ruth
> 3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again
> of sins every year.
> 4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
> goats should take away sins.
The only way that this is true, as Lev.16 clearly states that all their
sins were taken away through the Yom Kippur sacrifice and Luke 1:6 says
Z&E were righteous and blameless under the Law, is if "take away sins"
means make a person as sinless as Adam before the fall. As if that
person had never committed any, not even one sin ever. That is what
Yeshua's death did.
If you really think that every sin we commit does not matter, then you
would not need to ask forgiveness more than once in your life. But if
you still sin, maybe you need to see Hebrews, 10:26-27, "For if we sin
willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful expectation
of judgement and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
Anyone rejecting Moses' Law dies without mercy on the testimony of two
or three witnesses".
What is sin? It is, (1John3:4), "Whoever commits sin indeed commits
the Law- lessness and sin is the Law- lessness." "The Law" is not a
generalized law that is being abrogated. "The Law" refers to the
Mosaic Law.
Ruth
> 5) Therefore when He comes into the world, He says,
> "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You have
> prepared a body for Me.
> 6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have had
> no pleasure.
> 7) Then I said, Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is
> written of Me) to do Your will, O God."
This is saying that Yeshua came to obey every commandment of God, to
never sin and need forgiveness or atonement , just as God intended when
He made Adam and Eve.
Ruth
> 8) Above, when He said,
This actually says, "Earlier saying"
> "Sacrifice and offering, and burnt
> offerings and offering for sin You did not desire, neither
> did You have pleasure in them
>(which are offered according
> to the Law),
This is a quote from Psalm 40 where David says, "Thou dost not desire
sacrifice or meal offering, Thou hast dug open my ears; burnt offering
and sin offering hast Thou not required. Then said I, 'Lo I come with
the scroll of the Book, which is written for me [Kings were required to
study and write the Torah, the Book of the Law]
I delight to do Thy will O my God and Thy Torah is within my heart".
Ruth
This was said by David because the sins he had committed, intentional
murder and adultery, had no sacrifice to cover them. He was to be
sentenced to death for committing them. [But note how He delights in
The Law of God.]
Ruth
> 9) then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He
> takes away the first so that He may establish the second.
What has been taken away? The mandated death penalty. David did not
receive the death penalty, his son died in his place. As the Son of
God died in our place for the sins that could not be forgiven under the
Mosaic Law. Our death penalty, even for intentional sins, was taken
away by the blood of Yeshua.
The "first" cannot be the Law or even the animal sacrifice system at
that time, because of Heb.8:4. " For if He were on earth, He would not
be a priest for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed
by the Law." The Law was still in effect at the writing of this
letter. And it does not say "He has taken away".
There was a time to come when the Temple would be destroyed, when the
animal sacrifice system would be discontinued and the author only says
it would be taken away not destroyed. When the Temple was destroyed,
the unbelievers were given a clear message that they had no way of
forgiveness and this would bring many to turn to Yeshua to receive
forgiveness.
But Jer.33 says that there will always, as long as there is day and
night, be a Levite to offer burnt offerings, as well as Isaiah 66, that
offerings would be brought to the Temple in the Millenial Kingdom.
This passage in Hebrews does not deny that Temple sacrifices may
return.
Ruth
.
> 10) By this will we are sanctified through the offering of
> the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The verse actually says, "The offering once [Not once for all! ] of
the body of Jesus Christ through which we are those who will be
sanctified,
[Note: will is not a noun.]
Ruth
> 11) And indeed every priest stands daily ministering and
> offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take
> away sins.
[Note prior explanation]
> 12) But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for
> sins forever, sat down on the right of God,
>
> Note: He TAKES AWAY THE FIRST.
The "First" does not mean the Mosaic Law or covenant. It say "takes
away" not "takes away forever" or "has taken away" either.
>
> Note: ONCE FOR ALL.
It says "once" not "once for all".
And verse 13 continues, " Henceforth waiting until His enemies are put
as a footstool beneath His feet".
Ruth
>
> The old system is not for Christians and when Christ
> returned in judgment, in 70 AD, the old system was
> removed physically as well, which is why you don't have
> a way to do it.
Whoa! Yeshua returned in 70AD?
By the "old system" you mean the animal sacrifice system, I presume.
It was not removed. The Temple was destroyed making it impossible to
operate. The Temple was destroyed during the Babylonian captivity also
but it was rebuilt and the system returned.
Where do you see Scripture that says it will not return?
Before the Levitical system there was the Melkisedek priesthood system.
That was not destroyed as Yeshua is a priest from that system. And
Jer.33 indicates the Levitical system will return.
Ruth
>
> Note that Paul goes further on to say that the Law
> is done away with and that the way is now open
> to the Gentiles.
>
> Ephesians 2:13-16
>
> 13) But now in Christ Jesus you who were once
> afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.
> 14) For He is our peace, He making us both one,
> and He has broken down the middle wall of partition
> between us,
> 15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law
> of commandments contained in ordinances) so that
> in Himself He might make the two into one new man,
> making peace between them;
> 16) and so that He might reconcile both to God in one
> body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.
>
> It says right there that He abolished the Law of
> commandments contained in ordinances.
No. It says that He abolished the enmity between Jew and gentile by
reconciling Jew and gentile through His Holy Spirit and through His
sacrifice on the cross for the whole world. So all believers, Jew and
gentile are children of God and brothers in the Lord.
What law of commandments contained in ordinances was he refering to?
The passage actually says "the dividing wall of the hedge" which was
an actual partition that was placed in the Temple to keep gentiles out
of the main Temple. It was NOT placed there by a Law of God. In fact
God told them in Numbers 15 that they must allow believing gentiles to
give sacrifices. They were commanded to love and treat them as
brothers. The law of commandments contained in ordinances were those
man-made ordinances they had added to the Law of God that separated the
children of God. So God gave the gentiles His Holy Spirit showing that
they were His children just as much as the Jews. Peter, Paul and the
Jerusalem Council proclaimed that message.
God's Mosaic Law did not separate Jew and gentile believers so this
cannot refer to Mosaic Law!
Ruth
> So you
> do what you want. The Law is done away with.
The Mosaic Law has not been done away with and you have Not proved it
by the Scriptures you have selected.
Ruth
>
> Jesus said...
>
> "I give you a NEW commandment, that you love one
> another. As I have loved you, you should also love
> one another." - John 13:34
>
> Jesus told us to love God and for the disciples to love
> one another and to love our enemies (two different
> kinds of love). Those are the commandments that
> He gave us
The commandment to love your neighbor is one of the 613. Lev.19:18,
"...love your neighbor as yourself." The only thing that changed was
that we are to use Yeshua's example as to how that love is to be shown.
This was not an addition or subtraction to the Mosaic Law as that is a
sin and if Yeshua added or subtracted from the Law, He would not have
been a sinless sacrifice. Love you enemies is just a definition of who
is your neighbor not an addition but a clarification of intent.
Ruth
> and also gave us more instructions through
> His Apostles, as the church grew. So to love Him and
> keep His commandments, is to do those things.
So do you raise your hands in worship? That's a new Law from Paul. Do
you tell you wife and daughters they are not allowed to braid their
hair? Do you eat meat with the blood still inside? Do you buy food
raised by unbelievers who might have dedicated it to idols? Do you do
the work assigned for gentiles to do, make the jews jealous so they
come to know their Savior by living and becoming as one like them? I
know you tell others not to obey the Law that Yeshua says warned you
against doing.
Ruth
>
> Thus, I have answered your question and thank you
> for answering mine.
> Pastor Dave Raymond
Please again accept my apology. I failed to read your answer before
posting that you had not given one.
Ruth
psalmsmith
"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you reject even the least important command
> > in the Law
>
> (Doesn't say "in the Law")
>
> Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
> commandments...
Sure it does. It is clearly in the context.
Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the
law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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."
(KJV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the LAW
shall in no wise pass from the LAW
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments....
What commandments are being spoken of?
The context makes this very clear.
> I (Jesus) say unto you...
>
> Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and
> doeth them not...
>
Matthew 7:24-29 "Therefore whosoever heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise
man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And
every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and
the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great
was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended
these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For
he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."
(KJV)
You would ignore the context of only one (single!) verse prior to the
statement in Mat 5:19, and uphold a passage two and a half chapters
ahead in order to affect the meaning of the original statement?
Are you saying that Matthew 5:17-18 has no impact on Mat 5:19, but that
Mat 7:28 does?
Come now. This is far too obvious for an accidental misinterpretation.
Matthew 7:24-29 records Messiah as stressing the importance of everythng
He taught in Matthew chapters 5 and 6 and the first half of chapter 7.
One of those things that He taught, was the proper interpretation of the
law, and the fact that it is still important to us today.
Will we hear these teachings and do them? Or will we hear them and do
them not?
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>Will we hear these teachings and do them? Or will we hear them and do
>them not?
You mean from your "holy" book.
Leviticus 15:2 (KJV)
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man
hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is
unclean.
psalmsmith
"ruth" <mrut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And if you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind like Christ
> > asked, you will not seek to offend him, put anything above him, or use
> > his name irreverently by swearing to falsehoods in the name of the good
> > LORD.
>
> But you just prior said it was not so bad to curse YHVH or Yeshua. You
> were just not use the Holy Spirit's name in vain.
> The trouble with you and many others is that you mix up salvation and
> living a Godly life. Once you are saved by belief you are a child of
> God and you will do whatever He tells you to do. He has told you how
> He expects you to live by the code of conduct He gave through Noah and
> Moses and as seen by the example of obedience wherein Yeshua walked.
> Ruth
I think the problem here is not with the individual, but with the
corporate, and the weight of history.
For 1700 years now, the majority of the Body has been taught that even
thinking about observing the law is evil, and anathema to God, and
because the people respect their elders (and probably also because they
are afraid of what this obedience entails) they have believed the
teaching wholeheartedly.
But the source of this rejection came from two ungodly ideas, which
thing is not taught amongst modern Christiandom.
First there was Constantine, who declared the Roman Empire to be
Christian in one fell swoop. This, of course, had nothing to do with
hearts or souls having been converted but with a vision he recieved as a
result of a concussion that told him to go out and conquer the world
under the sign of the cross.
Therefore, at that time much of what was to be called Christian was
nothing more than the people of the Roman Empire continuing in their
pagan practices but now under the name of Christ instead of Oestre or
Jupiter and so on.
Secondly, after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman
Empire, Jews were hunted down and killed. They recieved as great a
persecution as the Christians did under Nero.
Therefore, to avoid being persecuted along with the Jews, believers gave
up their "Jewish-like" practices and adopted the practices of the
Christian-nominated pagans. That this act was tragic should be obvious.
So we have first a relabling of pagans as though they were Christian,
without the effect of a change in their hearts or their beliefs, and we
have secondly a heavy persecution of Jews, which the Christians sought
to distance themselves from by abandoning the Jewish-like practices they
were accustomed to. These are the two historical events that have
shaped the church today into the anti-hebrew-roots organization she is.
This has led to the fervent rejection of where we came from, and the
historically passed-down teaching that it is wrong, and maybe even
sinful, to keep the feasts and obey God's law.
Therefore, as it has happened several times in ancient Israel, we have
the weight of history and the teachings of most of the church against
us. We know from the examples set forth in Judges, Kings, and
Chronicles, that it is very often the case that a very small minority
are right while the vast majority is wrong.
In this case, just like in ancient Israel, the people believe that they
cannot be wrong because they are in the majority, and they believe that
they cannot be wrong because they are doing things the same way as their
fathers, and their grandfathers before them.
But what the people do not grasp is that just because their fathers and
grandfathers did it a certain way, and just becase most of the church
still does it that way, does not make it right.
psalmsmith
Saint Zombie <no.e...@truth.org> wrote:
Doctors would agree with this statement, they would clean the issue with
a disinfectant, and probably proscribe an antibiotic.
I likewise consider that someone who has puss running out of his skin is
unclean, and I do whatever I can to avoid making contact with that puss.
Surely if someone has an infection they should have it cleaned and
treated.
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>Doctors would agree with this statement, they would clean the issue with
>a disinfectant, and probably proscribe an antibiotic.
What types of antibiotics existed way back then in the year 10O0 BC?
Ian Zech
"psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
news:psalmsmith-63085...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
If you are not a woman, you have a brilliant imagination. LOL.
Lev 15:2. Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: The man that
hath an issue of seed, shall be unclean.
Issue of seed shall be unclean... These legal uncleannesses were instituted
in order to give the people a horror of carnal impurities.
psalmsmith
Saint Zombie <no.e...@truth.org> wrote:
Well, they used sesame oil and certain plant extracts known to have
antibiotic properties. "Of the drugs that have been identified, most
were plant extracts, resins, or spices. Many of the plants incorporated
into the asu medicinal repertoire had antibiotic properties, while
several resins and many spices have some antiseptic value, and would
mask the smell of a malodorous wound." http://www.indiana.edu/~ancmed/meso.HTM
Additionally, "Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt -
Second Edition" by Moustafa Gadalla ISBN: 096525092X details the
medicinal practices of ancient Egypt, Canan and Israel, including their
knowlede and use of several different kinds of antibiotics.
But really, what difference does it make? A person with a seeping
infection was still unclean, whether amoxicillin was specifically
available or not.
psalmsmith
"Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
[vayiqra 15:2] daberu el beney yisrael vaamartem alehem iysh iysh kiy
yihyeh zav mibsaro zobo tame ho
Speak unto the children of Israel and say to them 'concerning the man,
the man (for this cause) having a discharge from his body of disease
(also venerial disease) he is unclean from it.'
[Leviticus 15:2] Speak unto the children of Israel and say to them,
'concerning the man having a discharge from his body of disease (or
venerial disease), the man is unclean because of it.
/zobo/ does not mean either "semen" or "seed." You must be thinking of
/zera/, a completely different word.
Even if we take your approach and assume that /zobo/ refers specifically
to an infectious discharge due to venerial disease, as opposed to just a
generic infectious discharge. A person with a discharge from venerial
disease is still, unclean.
Pastor Dave
<cyg...@cncnet.com> spake thusly:
What drugs are you on? Jesus died once, for all sins.
To claim that we need to perform animal sacrifices for
sin, is to spit in His face and tell Him that wasn't good
enough. It is also to tell God the Father that He's
stupid. After all, He sent His Son to die on the cross
and it didn't work. Not if we believe that we have to
sacrifice for sin again.
Now if you can't see that, that is your problem and it
is a big problem!
Ian Zech
interpretations of that verse on the web and the word 'disease' was never
mentioned.
does not mean either "semen" or "seed." You must be thinking of
> /zera/, a completely different word.
>
It looks as if the word 'discharge' would be the correct english
translation. I had copied part of that verse from the Douay version. The KJV
is even worst with 'running issue out of his flesh'. Would that include
faeces and urine? :-)
> Even if we take your approach and assume that /zobo/ refers specifically
> to an infectious discharge due to venerial disease, as opposed to just a
> generic infectious discharge. A person with a discharge from venerial
> disease is still, unclean.
I have not used the word 'disease' nor have I used the expression
'infectious discharge', you just did.
I copied the following two texts from Jewish websites.
''Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, 'When any man has a
genital discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean.
This shall be his uncleanness in his discharge: whether his body runs with
his discharge, or his body has stopped from his discharge, it is his
uncleanness.''
''Yayikra (Leviticus) 15:1-14 HaShem said to Moses and Aaron, "Speak to the
Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the
discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is
blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring
about uncleanness: "'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be
unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean.''
In our modern days, it would seem reasonable to assume that the objective of
Leviticus 15:1-14 was to prevent the spread of venereal diseases but in
context, it doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like a modern Christian
Fundamentalist interpretation.
The contaminating agent, I believe, was semen discharge, premature
ejaculation, wet dreams. Was there a venereal disease known then that would
had lasted less than seven days? I'm not a doctor, but I doubt it.
Jews had their superstitions and Lev 15:2 is certainly one of them and those
about women, in the same chapter. Menstrual blood, for first Jews, would
contaminate everything it touched.
Saint Zombie
That would be Leviticus chapter 15.
And then chapter 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.
And 1st John chapter 5. OK, how about the entire book of 1st John.
psalmsmith
"Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
Well, I happen to read Hebrew. The translation is mine.
There are two words you are mixing up here, both of which appear in this
verse, /zoob/ and /zobe/.
/zoob/ means a simple discharge of whatever sort, and /zobe/ generally
means 'venerial disease' when it's speaking of men.
But how is any of this relevant the the fact that it is a good idea to
pay attention to the revelation of God found in the law?
Is this just some kind of strange ploy to make the believer talk about
semen, V.D., and genitals? If so, then talking about genitals stops
being all that exciting sometime around 18 years old, you should know.
Ian Zech
menstrual flux.''
> But how is any of this relevant the the fact that it is a good idea to
> pay attention to the revelation of God found in the law?
>
The fact is, you are giving a false interpretation, to a biblical verse and
you are trying to convince your readers that it's a revelation from God. In
hebrew or in english, that is called a LIE.
> Is this just some kind of strange ploy to make the believer talk about
> semen, V.D., and genitals? If so, then talking about genitals stops
> being all that exciting sometime around 18 years old, you should know.
>
I wish I was 18 but such is not the case. Semen and genitals are no longer
my hobbies but I still admire those beautiful young girls although I'm four
times their age. You and your fanatic friends cannot take that away from me.
I hope you don't mind if I tell you to 'go to hell' for having accused me of
some ploy here. You are upset because you tried to be smart. You told your
readers a lie, and you got caught you with your pants down. Better go back
to school and improve your Hebrew. You need to learn something about
exegesis too.
What you really need is clearness of understanding or insight;
'PERSPICACITY'.
If you are a Christian, why are the 613 precepts of the Jewish law so
important? What are you, a messianic Jew or a Judaizer?
If you are a messianic Jew, why was this thread posted on Christian
newsgroups? The Jewish law is for the Jews, don't pollute the young
Christian minds with it.
>>
>>
ruth
Ian Zech wrote:
> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
> news:psalmsmith-3D1F3...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <yqSff.4932$w84.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > "Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
> >> news:psalmsmith-AC084...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> > In article <kCOff.4849$w84.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> >> > "Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:psalmsmith-63085...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> >> > In article <568vn11rirp6cr5ot...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Saint Zombie <no.e...@truth.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:02:57 GMT, psalmsmith
> >> >> >> <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> >> Jews had their superstitions and Lev 15:2 is certainly one of them
Are you saying that Leviticus is no the Word of God?
Ruth
> > > and
> >> those
> >> about women, in the same chapter. Menstrual blood, for first Jews, would
> >> contaminate everything it touched.
> >>
> What you really need is clearness of understanding or insight;
> 'PERSPICACITY'.
> If you are a Christian, why are the 613 precepts of the Jewish law so
> important? What are you, a messianic Jew or a Judaizer?
> If you are a messianic Jew, why was this thread posted on Christian
> newsgroups? The Jewish law is for the Jews, don't pollute the young
> Christian minds with it.
Acts 15:20-21. Numbers 15:30-31. 1 John 5:3. Rev.14:12. Rev.2:14 &
20.
Ruth
> >>
Ian Zech
"ruth" <mrut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132507696....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian Zech wrote:
>> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
>> news:psalmsmith-3D1F3...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> > In article <yqSff.4932$w84.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> > "Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:psalmsmith-AC084...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> >> > In article <kCOff.4849$w84.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> >> > "Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "psalmsmith" <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:psalmsmith-63085...@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> >> >> > In article <568vn11rirp6cr5ot...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Saint Zombie <no.e...@truth.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:02:57 GMT, psalmsmith
>> >> >> >> <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> >> Jews had their superstitions and Lev 15:2 is certainly one of them
>
> Are you saying that Leviticus is no the Word of God?
I'm not Jewish.
> Ruth
>
>> > > and
>> >> those
>> >> about women, in the same chapter. Menstrual blood, for first Jews,
>> >> would
>> >> contaminate everything it touched.
>> >>
>> What you really need is clearness of understanding or insight;
>> 'PERSPICACITY'.
>> If you are a Christian, why are the 613 precepts of the Jewish law so
>> important? What are you, a messianic Jew or a Judaizer?
>> If you are a messianic Jew, why was this thread posted on Christian
>> newsgroups? The Jewish law is for the Jews, don't pollute the young
>> Christian minds with it.
>
> Acts 15:20-21.
James was Jewish, I'm not Jewish.
> Numbers 15:30-31.
I'm circumcized but I'm not Jewish. Judaism is not my religion.
> 1 John 5:3.
For loving God means obeying his commands. Moreover, his commands are not
burdensome,
(The Complete Jewish Bible)
The 613 Jewish Mitzvots do not apply to Gentile Christians.
>Rev.14:12. Rev.2:14 & 20.
Revelation will continue, probably until the end of time, to be a
writing "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as
they do the other scriptures".
Are you still waiting for your Jewish custom made messhiah, Ruth? He had a
change of mind, he's not coming, but you can still dream of it with your
Tanach under your pillow.
Zech
> Ruth
>
>> >>
>
Sam Taylor
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
i never said anything about animal sacrafices, which are given as a
picture of what YHWH plan of the ages is.
You xtians seem to think that the law itself is sin, and anyone whom
does anything to please YHWH is a sinner, as if you can judge them.
Which you can by your own sinfull hearts, but not knowing theirs
your judgements just might be wrong
how I alagoricly stated, is how your preachers preach it.
Ian Zech
"Saint Zombie" <no.e...@truth.org> wrote in message
news:jccvn1himkc9g6mib...@4ax.com...
Why do you think Leviticus dates back to the 10th century BCE, is it because
its rules are so archaic? :-)
Ezra's priestly colleagues probably bundled up some ancient priestly
Canaanite rules, added in some of their Judaist material and published it
after the return from exile (400s BC), maybe later.
Antibiotics then? Of course they did, they used the ashes of a red heifer. A
sheik or ramses would hold the ashes in place. :-)
Pastor Dave
<cyg...@cncnet.com> spake thusly:
But Ruth did and yet, you had no problem posting a sarcastic
message to ME, as if *I* had said something wrong!
Why don't you try READING what I'm responding to FIRST?
>which are given as a picture of what YHWH plan of the ages is.
Not to Ruth.
>You xtians seem to think that the law itself is sin,
I did not say that. I said that Christians are not bound
under the Law and as Paul showed, to claim that you are,
is to commit adultery.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
psalmsmith
"Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote:
That explains it. You consider Torah to be the words of witch doctors
gathered together by random priests, and not to be the Word of God.
Saint Zombie
<psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>the Word of God
... is a book.
psalmsmith
Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Actually no, Paul said that legalism was illegal, but that the Law was
holy, just, and good. And 'adultery'? With the word of God? Surely
you do not intend to make GOD out to be an ADULTRESS do you?
Read The Bible
> He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing
> that) :He gave the real , the truthfully
> interpretation
These are the words which I spake unto you, while I
was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
> gedalyah posted:
> There is no law that Yeshua erased.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the
law of commandments.
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having
spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of
them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But
after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment
going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the
bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we
draw nigh unto God.
> gedalyah posted:
> Not even the ceremonial law
When he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice
and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou
prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for
sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I
come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,)
to do thy will, O God. Above 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; Then said he, Lo, I
come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first,
that he may establish the second.
The 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: Which 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; Which stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,
imposed on them until the time of reformation.
> gedalyah posted:
> even Shaul (Paul) brought the appropiate offernig
Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain
the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under
the law, that I might gain them that are under the
law.
Ye are not under the law.
We are not under the law.
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye
not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had
two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born
after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by
promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this
Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to
Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her
children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which
is the mother of us all. 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. Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even
so it is now. 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. So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bondwoman, but of the free.
Read The Bible
> You cannot claim Jesus and also claim to have to do
> all of the Law, when that would include sacrifices
> for sin.
As many as are of the works of the law are under the
curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the
book of the law to do them. But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the
law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them
shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it
is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it
be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no
man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not,
And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy
seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the
covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years
after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of
the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to
Abraham by promise.
*******
> ruth posted:
> Yeshua gave him one of the commandments He knew he
> was not keeping, "love your neighbor as yourself".
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he
that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any
other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour:
therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in
this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
*******
> Dave posted:
> You are not a Christian.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of
you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from
grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of
righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither
circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision;
but faith which worketh by love.
> Dave posted:
> You are assuming that "His Commandments" are the
> Law.
The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came
by Jesus Christ.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you,
That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
ruth
Read The Bible wrote:
> > gedalyah posted:
<snipped>
>
> We are not under the law.
>
> Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye
> not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had
> two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
> after the flesh; but he of the freewoman (Sarah) was by
> promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
> the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai,
> which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Agar = Hagar
Tell me, were Hagar and her children at Mt. Sinai? Were Hagar andher
children part of the Mosaic Covenant?
Ruth
> For this
> Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to
> Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her
> children.
Do Hagar and her descendents answer to Jerusalem?
Ruth
> But Jerusalem which is above is free, which
> is the mother of us all. 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.
> Now we,
> brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> But as then he that was born after the flesh
> persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even
> so it is now.
The people he was talking to he said were children of Isaac. Who are
the children of Isaac? Israel.
Ruth
> 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. So then, brethren, we are not children of
> the bondwoman, but of the free.
So then we are not pagan people who do not obey the Commandments of God
given at Sinai like Hagar and her people. We are children of Isaac who
have received the promise of salvation and have been given the Law of
God Almighty.
The same Law that David, whose descendent, Yeshua, will rule as King of
the whole world from Jerusalem, said in Psalm 119: "Your Law is my
delight", I love Your commands", I have set my heart on Your Law",
"Long ago I learned from Your statues that You established You Law
forever", "All Your righteous wrords are true and all Your righteous
Laws are eternal",
"I will walk in liberty for I have sought Your precepts".
The New Covenant, as described in Jer.31, says that YHVH said, "My
Torah", My Mosaic Law" I will put on their minds and write on their
hearts. The Mosaic Covenant Law has not passed away just like the
Noahide Covenant Law did not pass away when the Mosaic covenant was
established.
John the beloved disciple said, that if you love God, the Father, you
will obey His commandments. Yeshua said in Revelations that saints are
those who have the faith of Yeshua and obey God, the Fathers
commandments.
Ruth
ruth
Read The Bible wrote:
> > gedalyah posted:
> > He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing
> > that) :He gave the real , the truthfully
> > interpretation
>
> These are the words which I spake unto you, while I
> was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
> which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
> prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Could you possibly interpret this as saying that the Noahide Law and
covenant has passed away? The Noahide Covenant is contained in the Law
of Moses (the Book of the Law: Gen. - Deut.) . If you think Yeshua
meant the commandments, show me a prophecy in the commandments. And
show me where the prophecy of the Millenial Kingdom has already been
fulfilled. This in no way makes your statement that the Mosaic Law is
not still effect, true.
In Jeremiah YHVH says that the Levitic priesthood and burnt offerings
and a man to sit on David's throne will not cease until day and night
pass away. We know when that will happen. In Rev. it says that after
Satan is destroyed the New Jerusalem will descend from Heaven and God
will shine forth from there and replace the sun and moon.
Ruth
>
> > gedalyah posted:
> > There is no law that Yeshua erased.
>
<snipped>
ruth
Read The Bible wrote:
> > gedalyah posted:
> > He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing
> > that) :He gave the real , the truthfully
> > interpretation
>
> These are the words which I spake unto you, while I
> was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
> which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
> prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
>
> > gedalyah posted:
> > There is no law that Yeshua erased.
>
> Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the
> law of commandments.
You are using very bad translation of Eph.2:15.
Try going to Blueletterbible.org and clicking "V" in front of the verse
and you can see several other translations. If you click on the "c"
you can see the KJV greek.
Here is an earlier post you might have missed:
Ephesians 2:13-16
13) But now in Christ Jesus you who were once
afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.
14) For He is our peace, He making us both one,
destroying the dividing wall of the hedge ,
15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law
of commandments contained in ordinances) so that
in Himself He might make the two into one new man,
making peace,
16) so that He might reconcile both to God in one
body by the cross, in Himself, putting to death the enmity.
It says that He abolished the enmity between Jew and gentile by
reconciling Jew and gentile through His Holy Spirit and through His
sacrifice on the cross for the whole world. So all believers, Jew and
gentile are children of God and brothers in the Lord.
What law of commandments contained in ordinances was he refering to?
The passage says "the dividing wall of the hedge" which was
an actual partition that was placed in the Temple to keep gentiles out
of the main Temple. It was NOT placed there by a Law of God. In fact
God told them in Numbers 15 that they must allow believing gentiles to
give sacrifices. They were commanded to love and treat them as
brothers. The law of commandments contained in ordinances were those
man-made ordinances they had added to the Law of God that separated the
children of God. So God gave the gentiles His Holy Spirit showing that
they were His children just as much as the Jews. Peter, Paul and the
Jerusalem Council proclaimed that message.
God's Mosaic Law did not separate Jew and gentile believers so this
cannot refer to Mosaic Law!
Ruth
<snipped>
ruth
Read The Bible wrote:
> > gedalyah posted:
> > He fullfilled the Law means (i am not inventing
> > that) :He gave the real , the truthfully
> > interpretation
I have answered at least 3 of your Scripture references. I will answer
them all if you will put the book and verse where they are found.
I'm retired but I still don't have enough time to search for them.
Thanks, Ruth
Ian Zech
Were Jewish Priests and their Scribes witches? Do you believe it was handed
down through angels and a mediator? Forty days on top of a mountain with
angels, forty years in a desert of ignorance. If the Torah is the Word of
God for the Jews, why do Jews make fun of the Koran and other Scriptures?
Why do you get so excited, you're no longer a Jew.
KnightsKnives
"Read The Bible" <bible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132566577.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Sinai. God gave the law. Now as to the difference from that age to this,
there are some differences with the Law. If you are going to quote
scripture please give the author his due respect, otherwise it is
plagiarism. When there are 20 or more Bibles to choose from, it can seem
that the words you have written are from you. But if you show us where it
is that these words come from it is easier to reflect upon what you have
written. It may be that you think all of us know where you are quoting
from, but please don't do this. There are too many translations out there,
and though the words may sound familiar they are quite different from the
books that I read.
Your message is hidden from me when you give no reference.
I mean you no disrespect.
KnightsKnives
KnightsKnives
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:46:48 GMT, psalmsmith
> <psalm...@blyahoook.com> wrote:
>
>>certainly not in Galatians
>
> Ah ha. One that attempts to lessen the Messiah's teachings ...
>
> ... in order to elevate another's. BTW, is your name Paul or Saul?
>
> Your x-ray's are ready to pickup. They reveal nothing inside. ;-)
>
>
KnightsKnives
you not avoid the pus, especially in those times when there wasn't
antibiotics.
KnightsKnives
"Ian Zech" <lo...@netkook.edu> wrote in message
news:6Xogf.3402$gK4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
longer Jewish. It would seem to me that you don't understand where your own
beliefs came from.
When Jesus was upon the Earth, did he preach from the new testament?
What did he preach from? Almost all of his sermons were to Israelites, so
if he preached only his own thoughts, why was he not stoned. No, he
preached from the Torah, and spoke to the people in a way that they could
understand the Torah.
KnightsKnives
"Ian Zech" <Get_an_e...@lol.net> wrote in message
news:yqSff.4932$w84.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
KnightsKnives
the old testament is not true then the prophets of the old testament are
false as well. Those purporting to claim that a Messiah would come and help
the Israelites. Throw out the baby with the bath water and you have no
religion upon which to stand. You cannot have it both waysnews:nW2gf.531$gK4....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Roy Mock
Usually "the word" in the scriptures means the gospel.
Cheers.
Ian Zech
"KnightsKnives" <he...@now.com> wrote in message
news:11o555j...@corp.supernews.com...
You are Jewish but you are no longer Jews. A Jew is first ans above all a
member of the Jewish faith which is Judaism, second he is a member of the
clan.
You've been kicked out of the clan and of the Jewish Synagogues.
> When Jesus was upon the Earth, did he preach from the new testament?
> What did he preach from? Almost all of his sermons were to Israelites, so
> if he preached only his own thoughts, why was he not stoned. No, he
> preached from the Torah, and spoke to the people in a way that they could
> understand the Torah.
There were no Israelites at the time of Jesus. There were Samaritans and
Judeans.
Ro 9:4 the people of Isra'el! They were made God's children, the Sh'khinah
has been with them, the covenants are theirs, likewise the giving of the
Torah, the Temple service and the promises;
I'm not Jewish. You can keep your Sh'khinah and your Torah. Your Temple is
gone, it had become a whore house.
>
>
>
Ian Zech
been superceeded by a new testament. You can refer to it, read it, but it's
been replaced. Why would I read stories that were written to teach the
Jewish Torah? I'm not Jewish. Do you read the Koran? I'm sure you don't.
Why? Because you are not Mohametan and probably can't read Arabic. Don't use
the word 'Israelites', it's not in the Jewish Tanach. Israelites were
Canaanites, Samaritans.
"KnightsKnives" <he...@now.com> wrote in message
news:11o565d...@corp.supernews.com...
KnightsKnives
of their beliefs. I am still a Jew. A Jew who believes in Christ. If you
knew anything about Jews you would know that. It is not something you can
Google up. It is something within the family.
Your ugly comments probably insult a lot of people. But it shows what
kind of a person you are. If you choose to be bigoted, that is your problem
not mine.
If you have something of intelligence to say, I will answer, but you
last post makes it most probable that all you have left are insults.
Goodbye
KnightsKnives
KnightsKnives
same Hebrew writings. The twelve sons of Jacob (Israel), became what is
know as the Israelites. Look it up. I am not going to teach you about the
Torah or the Tanach. You have already read it if you have read the old
testament. This ignorance of yours is not worth my time. If you have an
actual valid and decent thing to say or express, do so but please do your
research before you make yourself look sillier than you already do.
KnightsKnives
psalmsmith
"Ian Zech" <lo...@netkook.edu> wrote:
> Old testament means it's absolete, why would you want to make it legal. It's
> been superceeded by a new testament. You can refer to it, read it, but it's
> been replaced. Why would I read stories that were written to teach the
> Jewish Torah? I'm not Jewish. Do you read the Koran? I'm sure you don't.
> Why? Because you are not Mohametan and probably can't read Arabic. Don't use
> the word 'Israelites', it's not in the Jewish Tanach. Israelites were
> Canaanites, Samaritans.
This is becoming a terribly common position of late. As if God could
have been wrong when He inspired Moses and the Prophets! I actually
came to my position as a Hebrew-Roots believer, I think because I was
saved reading James and John. Because it was reading James when I had
my eyes opened (and then reading John when I gave my heart to Messiah) I
believe that James has had a great deal of influence on my beliefs. We
read that James' congregation was very zealous for Torah, and perhaps
this is why I too, am zealous for Torah.
But others have come to a Hebrew roots position by other avenues. I
think the obselescence concept that Mr. Zech has put forth has a lot to
do with it. Believers have read the scriptures and can see truth from
Genesis to Revelation, rather than bits and pieces of truth scattered
about as so many 'salad bar' Christians would have us believe.
And then they come across a person for whom the Tanakh is anathema, and
treat the elder covenant in the same manner as so many others treat the
Pauline Epistles...as though they were some kind of interloper on our
canon.
They investigate more deeply, and eventually come to a Hebrew-roots
position in an almost 'kickback' kind of reaction. (kickback is not the
right word, the word is failing me at the moment. an overzealous
overreaction that drives people too far in the other direction without
an equivalent cause)
I mean, I do believe that the Hebrew roots position is the 'most
correct,' according to my understanding of scripture. However, it is
not by any means mandated for salvation. It just seems to me, looking
over the history of the church that there has been something 'missing'
for 1700 years. Over the course of study and making my best effort to
live out what I believe, I have come to the conclusion that it is an
understanding of the place of the law and the feasts in the lives of
believers today.
And, because I can see that even though it has been missing, it is not
required for salvation, I almost feel like a kind of "soft Jeremiah"
where I don't have to say 'repent or be taken captive to
Nebuchadnezzar,' or say 'repent or be condemned,' instead I would say,
'learn what is right and recieve greater reward.' And I rather expect
that people will not pay much attention to such a soft-pedaled message.
Anyway, if I can see that the Church is not likely to start paying
attention to the Feasts and the Torah, ignoring that which reveals the
nature of God and Messiah in so great a depth, perhaps I am pursuing the
wrong course to try and show these things to people who already believe.
Perhaps it is to those who do not yet know so great a grace as Messiah
has bought and brought for us that I should be speaking. Nevertheless,
as Messiah also did, I feel the urge first to speak at home, "to the
lost sheep of Israel" as it were.
Shalom!
Glen
Ian Zech
groups will be lost forever to Judaism. Converts to Messianic Judaism are
often shunned by their Jewish families of origin and are excluded from the
local Jewish community. The Central Conference of American Rabbis, the
Reform rabbinic organization has stated: "For us in the Jewish community,
anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is
an apostate. Through that belief she has placed herself outside the Jewish
community. Whether she cares to define herself as a Christian or as a
'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to
us, she is clearly a Christian."
The Israeli Supreme Court decided on 1989-DEC-25, and subsequently,
that Messianic Jews were not eligible to immigrate to Israel under the Law
of Return, because of their belief in Yeshua. Non-theistic Jews who are
Atheists and Humanists can return, but not believers in Yeshua. They are
viewed as belonging to another religion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud4.htm
"KnightsKnives" <he...@now.com> wrote in message
news:11o5fcq...@corp.supernews.com...