To whom and why God gave the Sabbaths?

Ken Rank said:

It would be an interesting discussion to determine what the idea of "believe" was to a first century Jew. Was it simple belief as we define the word today... or did the word carry an additional concept beyond being "convinced of something?" Perhaps another thread.

Click to expand...

Hello Ken.

Hole in one.

If you know the New Testament deeply, you would understand one of the most
powerful words in the text, 'believe'. The Koine Greek word simply means to
trust, we trust in Christ. The other word 'faith' is not actually in the text.

The word 'faith' results from a translation of the Greek into Latin, then
translating the Latin into English. The word 'faith' should be removed from
the Bible, the word 'believe' or 'belief', should be inserted.

If I was you Ken, I would spend a few days researching the translation
of the Koine Greek word pisteuo. Bible translations follow tradition Ken.

klutedavid said:

Hello Crystal.

Thanks for your reply.

Revelations covers a vast period of time, certainly not one day.

Revelations 9
They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to
hurt men for five months.

This five month period is not the singular, 'day of the Lord'.

I have shown above that the singular day of Christ's return, is different
from the vast time period of the book of Revelation.

The use of the word 'Sunday' is not accurate, I prefer the 'first day'. Sunday
is the name of the Roman equivalent of the Jewish, first day.

The old creation was centered on a weekly time scale. The Sabbath was
a key day in the old created order, the Sabbath was the seventh day. We
notice in the New Testament that the first day, is the day when Jesus rose.

We celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we gather on the
first day to do this. We are a new creation in Christ, a new and eternal
creation, we have new day of celebration and worship.

Everything is new in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

Thanks again David - I do appreciate your stance that it is not a single day, but when you read the prophets they also speak of multiple days referred to as The Day of the Lord, entire books telling the whole story of the end, how it came to be, the wrath the battle and the new heaven and new earth. (what is, what was, and what is to come) Revelation is cohesive with those other writings.

The first day of the week was never given a name that holds any type of significance it was always referred to as the first day of the week. I was curious how you determine that John is speaking of the first day of the week in Revelation 1 when he speaks of the Lords Day?

Ken Rank said:

Thank you for the first part. I have NOTHING against you and the lack of tone in communications like this often cause issues that end in division. I hate division, I hate confrontation. I don't mind disagreement, heck, we can't possibly expect to agree on every detail right now Bob, do you agree with that?

Click to expand...

I most certainly do agree.

If you say yes, that at this time we have disagreement.... then we still need teachers. And if we still need teachers, then the conditions of the new covenant have not been met.

Click to expand...

I certainly do not agree, but I am willing to find out why you think that you are the teacher in that respect.

As for Israel, I recognize the "if" but I also recognize that the most repeated prophesy in Scripture is Israel coming back from the nations they were scattered into. Like God said through Hosea, "In the place where I said you are not my people, there you WILL BE called sons of the Living God." Even in Deut. 30:1-6 that I have referenced often, you'll see God... on the heels of having given the Law, declare that they would fail and be punished but also promise to bring them back and circumcise their hearts. This is repeated so many times in Scripture it is, now that I have seen it over the last decade or so, hard for me to understand why so many others don't see it. God is not slack, brother, when it comes to His promises, I know you believe that. And God promised to bring back the ones He cut off, Israel... which means our theology cannot arrive at a conclusion that does not make room for this. If our conclusions do, we need to revisit them. That is all I did... I held your position for a long time and finally I just realized the many promises that pointed to Israel's return. Even Paul writes this repeatedly... go look at Romans 9:27 but make sure to read Isaiah 10:22 and the wording around it. We see "saved" in the Romans passage but "returned" in the verse being quoted. It is returned... the Hebrew word AND the context are speaking of Israel's return from the nations.

Click to expand...

Every person that is the offspring of the 12 tribes of Israel has the same opportunity to accept Jesus as I did. Those who do are the remnant of Abraham. Israelites will never be saved a a group according to my understanding of scripture. They had their chance and blew it. God knew it was not going anywhere and offered Jesus as the sacrifice that has and will save those who freely come to the feet of Jesus. This is part of the new covenant, the blood of the covenant.

I truly do not understand your indication that we are still subject to the old covenant when Jesus has already shed His blood for the new. Heb 8 is in the present tense. Paul's writings on the subject are in the present tense. I do not read in Rom 9:22 any indication Israel will return as a nation and receive Jesus.
Isaiah 10:22New International Version (NIV)
22 Though your people be like the sand by the sea, Israel,
only a remnant will return.
Destruction has been decreed,
overwhelming and righteous.
Again, I do not see Israel returning as a nation. The had their chance brother.

Israelites that are to come are a remnant of the promise given to Abraham and receive salvation just like Gentiles. The big "IF" has been abrogated.

There are many verses I can share on this topic, when you see them together in their totality, it just can't be ignored. We actually compiled them and printed them in a booklet called, "Heresies contained within," but we only give it to those who are trying to put this together. Blessings.

Click to expand...

I thank you for sharing your beliefs. Even though I read and reread your post I am not impressed to change where the Holy Spirit has led me this far. If I were a writer I could write a book on how the Holy Spirit has led me throughout my life. I didn't realize His leading until I started seeing cracks in the church I belonged to. He really manifested Himself during my flight out of confusion. I, like the Israelites, spent 40 years in the church (wilderness) that taught me to live by the laws of the church. I died spiritually trying to live by the law and the promised land was just a speck. A goo portion of what I learned in that church has had to be unlearned. What is so redeeming about that experience is that when I learned about Grace, marvelous Grace I appreciated it more than I could/can ever express. I do not hope I am saved I know I am saved, saved not from what I do, saved by what He has done. I trust Him to continue in my future just as I see what has been done by Him in the past. God gave the gift of the law to Israel as their guide. In the new covenant Jesus has given Christians the gift of the Holy Spirit as our guide. He dwells with me and you. We are free to choose to listen to His soft voice or to listen to the conjecture of men.

God has not led me this far to for me to turn my back on Him and return to laws He has never ever given to Christians. Laws that would occupy my time and have no place in my salvation. They were laws that took away my freedom, caused me to lose my livelihood and made me feel terrible because I could never meet the standards just as in the case with Israel.

Ken Rank said:

Greetings Bob.

Click to expand...

Hi Ken

An interesting phenomena we find within Christianity is that when we find some verses in Scripture that seem to stand in contrast to other verses in Scripture, we either choose one and pit it against the other, or choose one and ignore the other. We see this in the predestination/free will debate. The truth is that both free will (Deuteronomy 30:19) and predestination (Ephesians 1:11) exist in Scripture. But rather than attempting to reconcile these two very different and contrasting positions, people choose one and either pit their choice against the other and divide from ANYONE who doesn't choose the side they chose, or... they choose one and ignore the other. You are doing that here....

Click to expand...

Ken, I have not chosen one scripture over another. I have read the remainder of your post and do not find anything that would conclude differently from Heb 8. You even wrote "I am saying that this work might have begun," Read the following:
Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 "These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

'Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.'

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."


We are free of the bond woman, not going to be free,or when Jesus returns. No, Right now we are free from the old covenant and the law of love continues to be on the hears of mankind.

Twice now I have posted the mark of the new covenant. It is found within the wording of the prophesy (Jeremiah 31:33-34) and in the fulfillment reference (Hebrews 8:10-11) where it is tied to you and I. Instead of addressing it, you have gone off and found another verse that you apparently don't think I have considered, and thrown that out there as your response. So, I will answer that, and then repost the question. I am hoping you address it this time, if you don't I am afraid, this conversation is over as I don't have any desire for this to be me answering your charges and you ignoring anything I ask in reply. Fair? I am not trying to be a jerk in any way... but this won't be a one-way street brother.

Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Click to expand...

Seriously, what is the difference? Did you leave out verse 32 because it is not relative to the discussion? That verse does make a difference my friend. Verse 31 even adds to the fact that it will not be like the old one. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,
declares the Lord.

Once again, seriously, Do you really believe that where the covenant is written makes it "unlike"? Why would God want to write 613 laws on our hearts and only 80 of them, per your count, be of any use to us? I don't get it and therefore I really do not buy into it. The Apostle John, in my reckoning, has it nailed down. We know er are doing what is right if we believe Jesus and love others as he commanded.

Amen to this.... but WHAT is better, Bob? I should really just stop and allow you to define what is better

Click to expand...

I was not the one who defined what is better my friend. The writer of the scripture took care of that. When I read the scripture I know that God had His hand in forming it. I cannot add buts to it. It really is up to you to decide if the writer was out somewhere in space on his own without any knowledge of the subject and just dreaming up something to write or read it and compare it with what the Apostle Paul wrote and the fact that Jesus did ratify it on the cross. I read your rebuttals to his thoughts and they really do not seem to be on the subject we are discussing.

but because my time is limited, I will just dive in. What is better? Well, at Sinai the law was written on stone and commanded that it be kept on our heart BY US

Click to expand...

I don't mean to be picky. God didn't command US, He commanded Israel and no other nation.

(Deuteronomy 6:6 and Deuteronomy 6:8). As you know, God's people could keep it there for a while,

Click to expand...

That is a stretch. Remember the golden calf. Israel agreed to obey the covenant and before Moses could come back with the stones they rebelled.

but the idea of keeping it there 24/7/365 just wasn't happening and so God decided long ago that HE WOULD write it on our hearts so that we might not sin against Him. So, He promised first in Deuteronomy 30:6 (better to read verses 1 through 6 for better context)

Click to expand...

I did and this is what I gleaned. God started out with a "When" first of all. When is like an "if" He would, but they won't and God knows they wouldn't and so He allowed the plan of salvation to stay its course.
30 When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes. 10 if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

613 commands and you can only observe 80 of them and sin like everyone else trying to keep them.

that HE WOULD circumcise the hearts of His people. Did you think the circumcision of the heart was a NT idea given to Paul? No... Paul was referencing the verse above. We also find in Ezekiel 11:19 and also in Ezekiel 36:26 (and there are others) where God promised through His prophets that He would (God would) remove the stony heart (the heart that relied on what was engraved on stone) and replace it with a heart of flesh (the circumcised heart, the heart that has His will/instructions written directly on it by God Himself).

Click to expand...

Interesting Ken, the problem it has never happened and now we have a new covenant and even the hearts of Gentiles are circumcised.

So what is better, Bob? What is better is that the law is written not on stone but on the heart. It won't be something we read, it will be something written inside us, probably part of our DNA, and we will no longer be able to sin. That is better, that is what guarantees life because... if the wages of sin is death... and God's perfect will is written in us so we cannot sin.... then death will be always part of history and we will live forever with the Lord. Amen.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, when the old covenant is written on my heart I will go out and rebuild the Temple and restore the priesthood so that I can worship accordingly to the 613 laws of the covenant. Really Ken does that sound reasonable? Think about it. For now I am satisfied that God has written Jesus commandment on my heart and that is going out and doing unto the least of these my brothers... I know that is written on my heart because I am stirred to wanting to love my fellow man as Jesus loves me. By helping those who are down I am also doing it to Jesus.

Hebrews 8:13 is the same... it is the stone, the law written and needing to be followed that is obsolete and it is replaced with the law written on the mind and heart by God Himself. Law on stone... obsolete... on heart as written by God both new and better.

Click to expand...

Hold on, when God spoke to the Israelites before Moses went up to receive the stones I was sure He spoke the words of the book of the law to Him and then Moses was told to speak those words to all the congregation and in verse
3 When Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.

It was all the 613 laws, not just the stones that mad up the covenant they agreed to. So is it just the 10 you are telling me will be written on our hearts or is it 613? If it is 10 then why are you observing the feasts and other old covenant requirements?

Now... I have directly answered your questions. Let's return to mine. You took issue with me saying the new covenant was not in place yet and I replied and I need you to address them now. The wording is clear, when this occurs, the implementation of the new covenant... the law will have been written on our minds and hearts by God and I am saying that this work might have begun, but won't be completed until His return. In fact, 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 both say that the Holy Spirit was given as a deposit, as a down payment, as an earnest... toward more to come. The more to come is the completion of the law written by God on the mind and heart. Since that has not happened, and since we STILL need to to teach our neighbor because ALL do not know the Lord (do >>ALL>> know the Lord, Bob?) then Yeshua has earned the right to implement this through His blood... but hasn't yet and won't until His return.

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly do believe we have to teach our neighbors. Spreading the Word is our privilege and duty. The plan of salvation is on going. Jesus while on Earth covered all He intended to do. He defeated Satan, gained salvation for all who love Him and now sits at the hand of the Father in the most Holy Place.. He trained His apostles to spread the Gospel and gave each one the real truth and directed them to write His thoughts for our improvement.

As to the completion of the law on my heart, it is complete, but I am not. Thank you Jesus for your wonderful marvelous Grace.

That is NOT TO SAY we are not children of God NOW... it simply means that the renewed or new covenant... where God writes His law on the mind and heart and we lose the ability to sin... has not occurred yet.

Click to expand...

Again, Thank you Lord for your Grace. I am waiting for the time this tired old body will shed its mortal state and take on your promise of imortality. Our immortal bodies and minds will not need laws to be written on our hearts. Ther wiil not be any sin throughout eternity. Jesus has already taken care of that.

Amen!

Time for the debate!!!!

klutedavid said:

Hello Ken.

If you know the New Testament deeply, you would understand one of the most
powerful words in the text, 'believe'. The Koine Greek word simply means to
trust, we trust in Christ. The other word 'faith' is not actually in the text.

Click to expand...

"If" I knew the words of the NT. I am not sure you realize how demeaning and inflaming some of your word choices can be. Do you WANT to have a civil discussion, work through some issues, see if we can find common ground? Then using words like "appalling" and phrases like, "if you know" do not help. Just saying....

klutedavid said:

Hole in one

Click to expand...

Probably not the hole in one you think it is. "Belief" to the modern western mind is to be convinced about something. "I believe Yeshua is messiah, that he raised from the dead... now I am saved." I am not sure that captures the Hebraic understanding of the word and that DOES matter since Messiah, his disciples, and every bible author but Luke and Mark were Hebraic. And, seeing the latter two studied under Hebrews, they still THOUGHT like Hebrews.

Belief in the Hebraic mind demands ACTION. Feel free to use your cursor over these verses to watch the progression:

In Exodus 19:3 Moses goes up the mountain and before God for instruction for all of Israel. Exodus 19:5 and Exodus 19:6 speak of obeying the words of the Lord AND this is what Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:9. In Exodus 19:7 we see Moses standing before all the elders of Israel and in Exodus 19:8 the elders agree to do the words that have been spoken. Then in verse 9:

Exo 19:9 And the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I come to you in the thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever." So Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

The context here is unmistakable, the idea of "believing Moses" carries the concept of doing what he says, obedience. He would tell them what God wanted and expected and they were to "believe" him but like I said, the context DEMANDS that "belief" carries the concept of obedience.

God does not change, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the idea of "belief" means a call to action, HEEDING, shema... hear and do..... when used in Exodus, then it HAS TO mean the same in Matthew or God has changed.

klutedavid said:

The word 'faith' results from a translation of the Greek into Latin, then
translating the Latin into English. The word 'faith' should be removed from
the Bible, the word 'believe' or 'belief', should be inserted.

If I was you Ken, I would spend a few days researching the translation
of the Koine Greek word pisteuo. Bible translations follow tradition Ken.

Click to expand...

I teach that we have created two different concepts with belief and faith and that today's Christian nearly treats God as a genie by expecting Him to ACT just because we "believe" He should. Shema Yisrael, Hear Israel, means "Hear and Do Israel" or "Hear and Heed Israel." Faith is exactly the same... or... if you prefer....belief is exactly the same. Faith comes by hearing God, it is dead without works, and therefore... true faith (or belief if you will) means hearing God and doing what He said just as the Israelites were to hear Moses and do what he said. Of course, he carried the words of the Lord so hearing Moses was hearing God, but I digress. Bottom line, John 3:16 isn't a call to be convinced that Yeshua is God's son, it is a call to ACT on the words he spoke (which were the Father's words) because he is the son of God.

Blessings.
Ken

Bob S said:

I certainly do not agree, but I am willing to find out why you think that you are the teacher in that respect.

Click to expand...

It isn't me, Bob. God said through Jeremiah, and Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) quotes the same word for word, that "there will no longer be a need to teach every man his neighbor because all will know the Lord." So, bias' aside, do ALL know the Lord? If you say, "yes," then Yeshua should be here because that would mean all have heard and either accepted or rejected. But we both know that many have grown up, especially in this increasingly liberal world, not hearing about him. Not all know the Lord, Bob. There is still a need to teach and if there is a need to teach, then the covenant is not in place.

The covenant HAS BEEN CUT Bob, Yeshua has already shed his blood. But it has not been implemented yet. If all (ALL) do not know the Lord, and if there is a need to teach... then we are not there yet according to the prophesy surrounding this topic. It isn't ME... it is just what it says. Some of it is in place... we have passed from death unto life... I believe that. But many aspects of the covenant are simply not in place YET. They will be.

Bob S said:

Every person that is the offspring of the 12 tribes of Israel has the same opportunity to accept Jesus as I did. Those who do are the remnant of Abraham. Israelites will never be saved a a group according to my understanding of scripture. They had their chance and blew it. God knew it was not going anywhere and offered Jesus as the sacrifice that has and will save those who freely come to the feet of Jesus. This is part of the new covenant, the blood of the covenant.

Click to expand...

Look up the word 'remnant' Bob, we treat the word in Scripture as "a small amount," but it doesn't mean that. The word means, "that which is left." If I went to to a fabric store and bought 1 yard of fabric off a 100 yard roll, the remaining 99 yards is called "the remnant." The number or amount is not part of the word, a "remnant" can mean a GREAT number or a small number. Doesn't matter, it is simply, "that which is left." The number of ISRAEL is as the sand of the sea, a number "no man can count." Will ALL of Israel be saved? Well, I doubt every single person will be but God does use the word "all" and so I think the issue isn't so much Israel or how many will or won't accept.... it is what the word 'saved' means. We have turned that word into something that always and only deals with eternal salvation. And while that is certainly important and a factor, the gospel is far more than just eternal salvation. There are promises about the land given to Abraham which by the way is part of the covenant with him but that has NEVER been fully in use by God's people. The promised borders given to Abraham as part of that covenant stand unfulfilled... so the idea that Yeshua cut the covenant with his blood but has not implemented parts of it should not cause an issue with you. Anyway... just look at Romans 9:27 and compare it to Isaiah 10:22. See how "saved" in one verse is "returned" in the verse quoted. There is a promised return and in SOME verses, translational issues cause us to miss it. The example I just gave is one of them.

Bob S said:

I truly do not understand your indication that we are still subject to the old covenant when Jesus has already shed His blood for the new. Heb 8 is in the present tense. Paul's writings on the subject are in the present tense. I do not read in Rom 9:22 any indication Israel will return as a nation and receive Jesus.
Isaiah 10:22New International Version (NIV)
22 Though your people be like the sand by the sea, Israel,
only a remnant will return.
Destruction has been decreed,
overwhelming and righteous.
Again, I do not see Israel returning as a nation. The had their chance brother.

Click to expand...

Again, if God made a covenant with Abraham and MUCH of it has never been realized to this day... then why is it so hard to accept that Yeshua can cut the new covenant with his blood and parts of it won't be fulfilled until his return? His work destroys death, right? Yet we STILL die. We WILL be saved, WILL be changed, WILL be perfected, and so forth. We ARE his children... He IS our Father... but there is work left to do.

The most repeated prophesy in Scripture is contextually tied... it is the calling of Israel back from the nations (a work began by Yeshua, see Matthew 15:24) and the reunification of all of Israel. This hasn't happened yet because there has not been a King over a united Israel since Solomon and when Yeshua sets up the Kingdom there will be (Hosea 1:11). Until then that is something else left on the table for future fulfillment.

The problem Bob... our Christian culture has taken "it is finished" to mean, "there is no work left to do, ever." Not true... we WILL BE perfected, we are not perfect now. That alone (and I can list off many other things left on the table) tells us that "it is finished" was dealing with one aspect of his many facets of work. He didn't ONLY die for sin... he did so much more than just that.

Bob S said:

I thank you for sharing your beliefs. Even though I read and reread your post I am not impressed to change where the Holy Spirit has led me this far.

Click to expand...

No problem and thanks for making it a worthwhile discussion. We don't agree and I really don't care. I told you that I wasn't trying to cause you to follow me and I mean it. Do as you are led brother, you answer for you.

Bob S said:

God has not led me this far to for me to turn my back on Him and return to laws He has never ever given to Christians. Laws that would occupy my time and have no place in my salvation. They were laws that took away my freedom, caused me to lose my livelihood and made me feel terrible because I could never meet the standards just as in the case with Israel.

Click to expand...

I won't spend any time on this based on my last statement. I will just say that the notion that I have turned my back on Him because I keep Passover or don't eat pork is not reality. I do these things BECAUSE of my love for Him. Not to be saved, not to try to gain favor, I just love the Lord and I know this much. Before Adam sinned, God was Adam's source for all understanding. When Adam sinned, he then had to begin choosing between right and wrong, good and evil. We have continued to have to choose all the way through Yeshua who... opened a door for us. And now we can come in faith to Him. We profess Him as "Lord" and in doing so are agreeing (we should be) to live by HIS standards. No longer do WE choose between good and evil, we allow our LORD (Master, ruler, use whatever word carries the most weight ) to make those choices for us. You and I on most things live the same. We wouldn't steal, kill, take the wife of another, and so forth. I just have a different understanding in a few areas and go further with this than you do. Again, not to gain favor... but out of love. John wrote, "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." So I do... and should I fail, and I do from time to time like anyone else... I have an advocate in Messiah Yeshua.

Blessings.
Ken

Bob S said:

Ken, I have not chosen one scripture over another. I have read the remainder of your post and do not find anything that would conclude differently from Heb 8. You even wrote "I am saying that this work might have begun," Read the following:
Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 "These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

'Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.'

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."


We are free of the bond woman, not going to be free,or when Jesus returns. No, Right now we are free from the old covenant and the law of love continues to be on the hears of mankind.

Click to expand...

You are taking literally something that Paul said was an allegory. I don't have time this morning to cover this... our group is in the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles and I have to get back to lead a study at 11:00.

Bob S said:

Seriously, what is the difference? Did you leave out verse 32 because it is not relative to the discussion? That verse does make a difference my friend. Verse 31 even adds to the fact that it will not be like the old one. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,
declares the Lord.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't leave it out. We BOTH agree we are talking about the new covenant... although I maintain that chadashah in Jeremiah and kainos in Hebrews means renewed. No matter.... I didn't quote it because the question was NOT "is there a new covenant," the question is, "is it ALL in place NOW?" The answer is no... He WILL make a new covenant (cut in Yeshua's blood) and it WILL BE DIFFERENT (the text is written on the heart and not stone) but facets of it are NOT in place YET. If you don't agree, fine. But unless you can prove that your AGING that WILL lead to DEATH is not tied to sin then you can't sway me on this one, sorry. The wages of sin is death and we STILL die. I don't believe Genesis is speaking about a spiritual death because the Hebrew denotes a PROCESS ("surely you will die" is literally, "dying you will die") not an immediate cut off. If it were the latter and spiritual and not physical.. then there are 100 examples I can give that would cause many people to have a serious bought of cognitive dissonance.

Bob S said:

Once again, seriously, Do you really believe that where the covenant is written makes it "unlike"? Why would God want to write 613 laws on our hearts and only 80 of them, per your count, be of any use to us? I don't get it and therefore I really do not buy into it. The Apostle John, in my reckoning, has it nailed down. We know er are doing what is right if we believe Jesus and love others as he commanded.

Click to expand...

I said that there are 80 because of the conditions and quite frankly I don't buy into the 613 number anyway. Rambam came up with that number, I think there are many more. And, some won't apply to you or me... you are not a woman or a Levite... not the land itself or an animal. Some things just don't apply.

Bob S said:

I was not the one who defined what is better my friend. The writer of the scripture took care of that. When I read the scripture I know that God had His hand in forming it. I cannot add buts to it. It really is up to you to decide if the writer was out somewhere in space on his own without any knowledge of the subject and just dreaming up something to write or read it and compare it with what the Apostle Paul wrote and the fact that Jesus did ratify it on the cross. I read your rebuttals to his thoughts and they really do not seem to be on the subject we are discussing.

Click to expand...

Here is what we KNOW.... the text of the covenant at Sinai was placed on stone. The text of the NC is written on the mind and heart. What is better? The heart... which is why the prophets spoke of God taking away the stony heart and replacing it with a heart of flesh.

Bob S said:

I don't mean to be picky. God didn't command US, He commanded Israel and no other nation.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I am 100% convinced that you and I are part of Israel. The new covenant that you quote is made with Judah and Israel. There is NO covenant made with gentiles (pagans)... we are either part of Israel or out of covenant. But, Paul told us in Eph. 2.... we WERE gentiles and WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel but are NOW fellow citizens. So, that is what we are... not because Ken says so, but because God inspired Paul to say so.

Bob S said:

That is a stretch. Remember the golden calf. Israel agreed to obey the covenant and before Moses could come back with the stones they rebelled.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but was that the end of it or did God allow them to renew their relationship through the sacrificial system?

Bob S said:

I did and this is what I gleaned. God started out with a "When" first of all. When is like an "if" He would, but they won't and God knows they wouldn't and so He allowed the plan of salvation to stay its course.
30 When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes. 10 if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Click to expand...

Yes... and YOU have indeed turned away and are now following Him. Remember, Yeshua said... not Ken said but Yeshua said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Judah (the Jews) came home from their captivity/punishment but Israel (the Northern Kingdom, historically called the lost sheep) did not and that is exactly who Yeshua said the weight of his mission was on. Salvation is for ALL... but his call was to those in the nations to bring them back and once that is accomplished... there are other prophesies that will be addressed in very short order.

Bob S said:

Interesting Ken, the problem it has never happened and now we have a new covenant and even the hearts of Gentiles are circumcised.

Click to expand...

You can say that, but the covenant is specifically made with, "the House of Judah and the House of Israel." If you can find the word goyim or ethnos (gentiles or nations in Hebrew and Greek) then please tell me where. Otherwise, the covenant is with Judah and Israel and we are either part of them or out of covenant. So... please, respond to this point with the word "gentiles" attached to the nc in Scripture. Thanks.

Bob S said:

Well, I certainly do believe we have to teach our neighbors.

Click to expand...

Because they don't know the Lord. If they did, the conditions were met and it would be in FULL effect. It isn't... because not all know the Lord and we still need to teach. This is the marker God placed on it, not me. I just accept it and as of now you haven't because you hadn't considered it completely. I am hopeful that in the example of Abraham's covenant and the other wording I used, that you'll see that some is and some isn't in place. Shalom.

Ken Rank said:

"If" I knew the words of the NT. I am not sure you realize how demeaning and inflaming some of your word choices can be. Do you WANT to have a civil discussion, work through some issues, see if we can find common ground? Then using words like "appalling" and phrases like, "if you know" do not help. Just saying....



Probably not the hole in one you think it is. "Belief" to the modern western mind is to be convinced about something. "I believe Yeshua is messiah, that he raised from the dead... now I am saved." I am not sure that captures the Hebraic understanding of the word and that DOES matter since Messiah, his disciples, and every bible author but Luke and Mark were Hebraic. And, seeing the latter two studied under Hebrews, they still THOUGHT like Hebrews.

Belief in the Hebraic mind demands ACTION. Feel free to use your cursor over these verses to watch the progression:

In Exodus 19:3 Moses goes up the mountain and before God for instruction for all of Israel. Exodus 19:5 and Exodus 19:6 speak of obeying the words of the Lord AND this is what Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:9. In Exodus 19:7 we see Moses standing before all the elders of Israel and in Exodus 19:8 the elders agree to do the words that have been spoken. Then in verse 9:

Exo 19:9 And the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I come to you in the thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever." So Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

The context here is unmistakable, the idea of "believing Moses" carries the concept of doing what he says, obedience. He would tell them what God wanted and expected and they were to "believe" him but like I said, the context DEMANDS that "belief" carries the concept of obedience.

God does not change, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the idea of "belief" means a call to action, HEEDING, shema... hear and do..... when used in Exodus, then it HAS TO mean the same in Matthew or God has changed.



I teach that we have created two different concepts with belief and faith and that today's Christian nearly treats God as a genie by expecting Him to ACT just because we "believe" He should. Shema Yisrael, Hear Israel, means "Hear and Do Israel" or "Hear and Heed Israel." Faith is exactly the same... or... if you prefer....belief is exactly the same. Faith comes by hearing God, it is dead without works, and therefore... true faith (or belief if you will) means hearing God and doing what He said just as the Israelites were to hear Moses and do what he said. Of course, he carried the words of the Lord so hearing Moses was hearing God, but I digress. Bottom line, John 3:16 isn't a call to be convinced that Yeshua is God's son, it is a call to ACT on the words he spoke (which were the Father's words) because he is the son of God.

Blessings.
Ken

Click to expand...

Hello Ken.

I agree that my word choice at times is rather harsh, will try to soften the word choice in future.

"Belief" to the modern western mind is to be convinced about something.

Click to expand...

Actually Ken, the Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'believe', as the acceptance that something is true without the proof. The Koine Greek word 'pisteuo', is translated into the English verb 'believe'. The Koine Greek word 'pisteuo' means to trust something or someone. Please read the following article Ken.

When the people of the first century got the letters of Paul, for example, they did not say, “What is pistis?”, as if Paul had invented a new word. Pistis was in common use in the Greek language, and had been for centuries. It is in the writings of the Greeks, including Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, etc. The first definition of 'pistis' in the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, sold in college bookstores to students of ancient Greek, is 'trust in others.' (truthortradition.com)

Paul the apsotle was born in Tarsus in the Cilicia of the antiquity, in what is now southern Turkey. Paul was not raised in Israel, Paul was a Roman citizen who spoke Koine Greek. When Paul is writing in the New Testament, Paul is not translating the Hebrew language or Hebrew thought into Koine Greek. Paul the
Roman citizen is writing to Greek speaking churches, located far from Israel. Koine Greek was the common language spoken throughout the Roman empire.

When Paul writes a verse such as the following.

1 Corinthians 1
21 God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

There can be no argument that Paul is precisely stating, that one must trust in Jesus to be saved.

"I believe Yeshua is messiah, that he raised from the dead... now I am saved."

Click to expand...

You managed to isolate the very message (the Gospel) that Paul preached, as shown below.

Romans 10
9 That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

I am not sure that captures the Hebraic understanding of the word and that DOES matter since Messiah, his disciples, and every bible author but Luke and Mark were Hebraic. And, seeing the latter two studied under Hebrews, they still THOUGHT like Hebrews.

Click to expand...

The New Testament text is written in Koine Greek, the text is not written in Hebrew. Paul was not born or raised in Israel, Paul knew exactly what he was writing in the Koine Greek. Paul was a very bright fellow and well educated, the letter to the Romans is a profound Greek text in it's own right.

Belief in the Hebraic mind demands ACTION. In Exodus 19:3 Moses goes up the mountain and before God for instruction for all of Israel. Exodus 19:5 and Exodus 19:6 speak of obeying the words of the Lord AND this is what Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:9. In Exodus 19:7 we see Moses standing before all the elders of Israel and in Exodus 19:8 the elders agree to do the words that have been spoken. Then in verse 9: Exo 19:9 And the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I come to you in the thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever." So Moses told the words of the people to the Lord. The context here is unmistakable, the idea of "believing Moses" carries the concept of doing what he says, obedience. He would tell them what God wanted and expected and they were to "believe" him but like I said, the context DEMANDS that "belief" carries the concept of obedience.

Click to expand...

I noticed you quoted from Exodus, very good Ken. Your one hundred percent correct, that the law of Moses required ACTION. To believe in YHWH at Mt Sinai, was all about a continuous active obedience. I would not dare to question what you stated, the Hebrews had to practice a righteousness based on the law.

Though what you wrote is a direct copy of what Paul wrote below.

Romans 10
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses,
resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Case closed Ken, Paul wote about the ACTION that the law of Moses demanded, then Paul introduced the Gospel of Faith!

klutedavid said:

Case closed Ken, Paul wote about the ACTION that the law of Moses demanded, then Paul introduced the Gospel of Faith!

Click to expand...

Ok, case closed... nothing I can say, no verses to contribute, even though I have barely shared ANYTHING on this topic of belief, you have said it all and the rest of the unlearned can go home and thank our heavenly Father that you have come into our lives and straightened us out.

Seriously... you acknowledge that perhaps you might watch some of the words you use that could inflame and then jump in and declare that the case is closed? I could care less what the Oxford Dictionary says David... what matters is how the words were understood within the culture in which they were first penned! If a 1st century Jew used a word that we would translate as "believe" or "faith," then it doesn't matter what the modern ENGLISH dictionary says because we BOTH know that SOME words just don't translate over perfectly. So... what did the Hebrew or Aramaic mean in context with the culture and time it was used when that letter in the NT was penned? That is what matters... not what Oxford says or Webster for that matter.

Hello Ken.

I am not scolding you Ken, I don't even know who you are. Your theology
is not your own viewpoint, you have been taught that interpretation. I am
dealing with the interpretation of the SDA organization.

Ok, case closed... nothing I can say, no verses to contribute, even though I have barely shared ANYTHING on this topic of belief, you have said it all and the rest of the unlearned can go home and thank our heavenly Father that you have come into our lives and straightened us out.

Click to expand...

The verses I quoted Ken were from Paul the apostle. Paul was the one who
explained how Moses delivered a belief with ACTION. Then Paul proclaimed
a new belief system in Jesus Christ, without the ACTION. This is not my
argument, your arguing with Paul.

Seriously... you acknowledge that perhaps you might watch some of the words you use that could inflame and then jump in and declare that the case is closed?

Click to expand...

I am using softer words Ken, much more gentle. Paul slammed the door shut
on all who attempt to exert their own righteousness, by obedience to the law.
The word 'believe' that Paul uses is the Koine Greek, 'trust'. Moses spoke of
belief and action together. They are different concepts, different covenants.

I could care less what the Oxford Dictionary says David... what matters is how the words were understood within the culture in which they were first penned! If a 1st century Jew used a word that we would translate as "believe" or "faith," then it doesn't matter what the modern ENGLISH dictionary says because we BOTH know that SOME words just don't translate over perfectly.

Click to expand...

The basis of our communication with each other is solely based on similar
definitions, dictionary definitions. Although I agree with you that we do
need a reliable first century translation. This is the beauty of Paul's epistles,
Paul knew exactly what he was saying in the Greek. Paul was a Roman-Greek.

So... what did the Hebrew or Aramaic mean in context with the
culture and time it was used when that letter in the NT was penned? That is what matters... not what Oxford says or Webster for that matter.

Click to expand...

Incorrect Ken, with Paul you need not concern yourself with the Hebrew
and Aramaic languages. That is why I used Paul's letters in the previous
post, Ken. Paul was raised in a Roman city, Paul's natural language was
Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic.

Hope you don't mind if I print Paul's verses again.

Romans 10
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses,
resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul says the case is closed.

I have been thinking, Ken has written that the new covenant is yet to come. He is not the only one, it seems like this is a belief of the Messianic movement (MM). If this is true and we read Jesus Apostle Paul's writings in Gal 3 and 4, statements like the law was until Jesus, where does that leave all of us on this Earth. We are not under the Torah (old covenant) per Paul and per Ken the new covenant has yet to be in force. Since Jesus appeared on Earth none of us have any rules? Could the MM be wrong? Would any of you reading this post take the word of the MM over the writings of Paul?

klutedavid said:

Hope you don't mind if I print Paul's verses again.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

This is the beauty of Paul's epistles,
Paul knew exactly what he was saying in the Greek. Paul was a Roman-Greek.

Click to expand...

???

klutedavid said:

with Paul you need not concern yourself with the Hebrew
and Aramaic languages. That is why I used Paul's letters in the previous
post, Ken. Paul was raised in a Roman city, Paul's natural language was
Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic.

Click to expand...

???

See above statements (verses) of Paul. You would have him striped of his Judaism, of his Jewishness it seems. That is not the witness we have in the scriptures.

klutedavid said:

The word 'believe' that Paul uses is the Koine Greek, 'trust'. Moses spoke of
belief and action together. They are different concepts, different covenants.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Romans 10
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses,
resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Click to expand...

I imagine you see the 'but' in verse 6 as a change, a completely new instruction, different from what Moses writes, dealing with a whole new covenant. Did I get that right?

Yet, what does verse 8 refer to? You probably missed it, but being a Jew it jumped right out at me. Do you know where the quoted statement of faith comes from? Torah. Deut. So what we really have Paul saying is;
Moses writes about righteousness based on the Law, (that the righteous will live by faith; Habakuk 2:4) BUT what does it (the law) say? And he quotes Deut 30:14. Because faith was not a new concept, it IS a very Jewish one.

Bob S said:

I have been thinking, Ken has written that the new covenant is yet to come. He is not the only one, it seems like this is a belief of the Messianic movement (MM).

Click to expand...

No, it is not. It is however a belief of numerous Hebrew/Jewish Roots believers. Messianic Jews as myself and the congregations I have participated within and among do not hold this position. What has yet to come is the restoration of Israel. Which occurs at the second coming. This is yet to come. Our hope, our faith, our eternal security is given through the Spirit is here, and now. The Spirit was given to comfort and protect the Messianic Jews, and was also given to those in the nations who would attach themselves to our Messiah. The belief that He has come, and has made the way, given us his Spirit and will restore all things at his return. So don't try and pin this on Messianic Jews. It's not from within our movement. Though many here in these forums who associate or identify as 'Messianic' do. Though they openly state they have no affiliation with mainstream Messianic Judaism.

Shimshon said:

Acts 21
37 As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” “Do you speak Greek?” he replied.
38 “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?”

39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

40 After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic :

Acts 22
1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said:

3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
​

???

???

See above statements (verses) of Paul. You would have him striped of his Judaism, of his Jewishness it seems. That is not the witness we have in the scriptures.



I imagine you see the 'but' in verse 6 as a change, a completely new instruction, different from what Moses writes, dealing with a whole new covenant. Did I get that right?

Yet, what does verse 8 refer to? You probably missed it, but being a Jew it jumped right out at me. Do you know where the quoted statement of faith comes from? Torah. Deut. So what we really have Paul saying is;
Moses writes about righteousness based on the Law, (that the righteous will live by faith; Habakuk 2:4) BUT what does it (the law) say? And he quotes Deut 30:14. Because faith was not a new concept, it IS a very

Click to expand...

Hello Shimshon.

Thanks for your reply. Your finger must have been stuck on the key with the question mark. Hope you don't mind if I use your quotes.

39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city.

Paul lists his citizenship as a non-Israelite.

Now how many years did Saul spend in Jerusalem under Gamaliel? We do
not know the answer to this question, nor do we know how old Saul was
when he was sent there. I checked three internet sites, the age given for
the commencement of his training ranges from six to fifteen.

What Bible translation are you using Shimshon? Your quotation of the
text (Acts 22:2) translates the Koine Greek word G1446 as 'Aramic'.
The NASB translates G1446 as 'Hebrew'.

See above statements (verses) of Paul. You would have him striped of his Judaism, of his Jewishness it seems. That is not the witness we have in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Paul was Jewish through and through, though Paul spent most of his life
outside of Israel. Paul was chosen by God to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
Paul was well suited to discharging this ministry, after all Paul was a citizen of Cilicia. We have a fellow born and raised outside of Israel, yet spent a period
of time also growing up in Israel under Gamaliel.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul threw away his claim to being a Jew himself. There were times that
Paul used his Jewish ancestry to achieve a given objective. But in Christ,
Paul was a new creation.

I imagine you see the 'but' in verse 6 as a change, a completely new instruction, different from what Moses writes, dealing with a whole new covenant. Did I get that right?

Click to expand...

I will print the verses below.

Romans 10
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Your imagination is correct, two forms of righteousness. One is based on law,
the other the righteousness of Christ. That is why Paul uses the conjunction,
'but', to contrast these two forms of righteousness.

The righteousness based on believing in Jesus, of course represents the New Covenant. Hope your not going to to use the Latin word 'faith' (fides), like the NASB does. Verse eight and nine, confessing Jesus as Lord, is essentially the Gospel message (1 Corinthians 15), that Paul taught.

klutedavid said:

Paul lists his citizenship as a non-Israelite.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

Paul was Jewish through and through, though Paul spent most of his life
outside of Israel.

Click to expand...

klutedavid said:

We have a fellow born and raised outside of Israel, yet spent a period
of time also growing up in Israel under Gamaliel.

Click to expand...

Yet, Acts 22:3 has him being 'raised in this city', namely Jerusalem. But you obfuscated the verse to reach an opposite conclusion than the actual verse states.

klutedavid said:

Paul threw away his claim to being a Jew himself. There were times that
Paul used his Jewish ancestry to achieve a given objective. But in Christ,
Paul was a new creation.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, Philippians 3. How does Paul describe his raising and Jewish status.


Seems Paul can't stop identifying as a Jew through and through. When Paul states he is 'forgetting what is behind him' it is not Judaism he is forsaking, but the notion following the law leads to ones own righteousness. Which is the subject of all Paul's letter. Righteousness apart from 'following the law'. Not apart from being a Jew. Nor apart from the nation of Israel. You continue to obfuscate Paul's letters. You use Romans 10 to separate Judaism from Christianity when it does nothing of the sort. I've already shown you where your proof text is actually the OT statement of righteousness by faith. But you seemly refuse to see it. Habbakuk, the righteous will live by faith. A uniquely Jewish statement, given by God to the Jewish nation.

And you seemingly forget or ignore the very next chapter in Romans...the dreaded Romans 11 (The remnant of Yisrael).

Both Jews and Gentiles are equal in regards to righteousness, there is no difference between how we attain it. This is not your witness. You're trying to teach me that righteousness has been striped from Israel and all who follow the law, and only comes through rejecting our Judaism, our lawfulness, and our calling, forsaking all we were born to be. By God himself.

In regards to righteousness there is no Jew nor Greek. So try eliminating your Greek mindset and stop trying to erase only the Jewish ones, so as to fit your false teachings of dispensational supersessionism.

Paul said God has NOT rejected "His people" (Israel/Jews), that there 'is' a remnant even this very day. (am yisrael chai!) chosen by grace that the elect (of Yisrael) 'did' obtain. ALL without rejecting or forsaking our birthright as Jews from the nation of Yisrael. No 'other' church that we were lead to, no other religion, no other law, no other transformation needed but that from within. Which does not erase or throw away as dung our Jewish heritage and traditions. The church really needs to get another form of missionizing...it's failed miserably for centuries in regards to Jews. And explains why Messianic Judaism is gathering scores of former church goers.

Shimshon said:

Acts 21
37 As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” “Do you speak Greek?” he replied.
38 “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?”

39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

40 After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic :

Acts 22
1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said:

3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
​

???

???

See above statements (verses) of Paul. You would have him striped of his Judaism, of his Jewishness it seems. That is not the witness we have in the scriptures.

​

Click to expand...

My response was going to be similar. Paul said he was a Jew, even called himself in present tense a Pharisee. He spoke in Aramaic as you pointed out, and Yeshua spoke to him in Hebrew on the Damascus Rd. Outside of Scripture, we have Eusebius, a contemporary of Constantine and one who might have had a Greek bias... write that Paul wrote in Hebrew and that Luke translated him into Greek. Eusebius also said that Peter wrote in Hebrew and that Mark translated him into Greek. But all of this is important but not the key... the key is that Paul THOUGHT like a first century Jew. His mindset was Hebraic, not Greek. He attended Beit Hillel under the tutelage of Hillel's grandson, Gamaliel. He called himself a Hebrew or Hebrews... his writings FILLED with Hebraic idioms, exegetical tools, and more. To view him as a Greek alters the context of the NT. That line of thinking is exactly what gives us the picture of a Roman solder when Paul writes about the armour of God.... rather than the gear of a High Priest which actually fits the meaning of what Paul is teaching. One should consider the Hebraic perspective when reading the NT or we leave food on the table.

Shimshon said:

No, it is not. It is however a belief of numerous Hebrew/Jewish Roots believers. Messianic Jews as myself and the congregations I have participated within and among do not hold this position. What has yet to come is the restoration of Israel. Which occurs at the second coming.

Click to expand...

We probably do not disagree as much as you might think. I don't (and many I know don't) see the new covenant as having one single aspect to it. I used the example of the covenant with Abraham in an earlier post. Has ALL of what is connected to that covenant been put in place and fulfilled at this time? No, a few thousand years later, aspects of the covenant made with Abraham are STILL not fulfilled. Does that mean Abraham walked outside the covenant? Of course not.... it just means that some things attached to it are still on the table awaiting fulfillment.

Yeshua cut the new or renewed b'rit with his blood, we ARE in a covenant relationship with God. But there is much tied to it that is simply not in place yet. The reunification of all Israel, the perfection of the saints (completing the writing of Torah in the mind and heart), the restoration of all things... much has been accomplished and much remains on the table. My more mainstream brothers see us walking in the fullness of the covenant... I am simply saying we are not entirely there yet and will know we are.... when we no longer need to teach every man his neighbor for all will know the Lord. Until that day, we are not in the fullness of the covenant yet. And that doesn't take from it or Him... it simply states what Scripture states. The covenant has some things which are in place, and some things which remain before us.

Blessings.
Ken

Ken Rank said:

We probably do not disagree as much as you might think. I don't (and many I know don't) see the new covenant as having one single aspect to it.

Click to expand...

Probably not. I understand our covenant with Hashem as a living thing, as I view all things with our God. Our covenants are living, breathing, as is the Word of Hashem. That said, a covenant has a birth, an adolescence and a maturity. Messiah is the final outcome of the covenant made through Moshe on the mountain. He is the mature result of that covenant. It was birthed through the Word of Hashem to Moshe on the mountain. It had it's adolescence through the nation of Yisrael that it would define, mold, and keep. And it became mature when Messiah was born, as he revealed it's inner heart to our hearts through the Spirit.

Now Messiah does a new thing, that was promised long ago. He renews a covenant within our hearts. And restarts the process. It's rebirth is given from Yeshua from Mt. Tziyon. It's adolescence has been through the formation of Messiah's body, the inner temple, the kedosh kedoshim. Through blood and sacrifice of our lives upon the altar of God. It's maturity will come with our (Yisrael's) resurrection. As it was with Yeshua.

So in this way we do probably agree that it is a process. The issue we face here is the notion it's either or, black or white, Jew or Christian. A greek mindset.

Ken Rank said:

We probably do not disagree as much as you might think. I don't (and many I know don't) see the new covenant as having one single aspect to it. I used the example of the covenant with Abraham in an earlier post. Has ALL of what is connected to that covenant been put in place and fulfilled at this time? No, a few thousand years later, aspects of the covenant made with Abraham are STILL not fulfilled. Does that mean Abraham walked outside the covenant? Of course not.... it just means that some things attached to it are still on the table awaiting fulfillment.

Yeshua cut the new or renewed b'rit with his blood, we ARE in a covenant relationship with God. But there is much tied to it that is simply not in place yet. The reunification of all Israel, the perfection of the saints (completing the writing of Torah in the mind and heart), the restoration of all things... much has been accomplished and much remains on the table. My more mainstream brothers see us walking in the fullness of the covenant... I am simply saying we are not entirely there yet and will know we are.... when we no longer need to teach every man his neighbor for all will know the Lord. Until that day, we are not in the fullness of the covenant yet. And that doesn't take from it or Him... it simply states what Scripture states. The covenant has some things which are in place, and some things which remain before us.

Blessings.
Ken

Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine it's very maddening for Christians to hear us say; it's here but not yet. So we have to help imagine for them how this covenant is born, grows and then is brought to maturity. Dispensationalism has done great damage to this way of thinking. It says one covenant was made and erased, and another was cut with a new people. It severed the connection with it's roots. Hence the Jewish Roots movement, and it's appreciation for Messianic Judaism.

Shimshon said:

Probably not. I understand our covenant with Hashem as a living thing, as I view all things with our God. Our covenants are living, breathing, as is the Word of Hashem. That said, a covenant has a birth, an adolescence and a maturity. Messiah is the final outcome of the covenant made through Moshe on the mountain. He is the mature result of that covenant. It was birthed through the Word of Hashem to Moshe on the mountain. It had it's adolescence through the nation of Yisrael that it would define, mold, and keep. And it became mature when Messiah was born, as he revealed it's inner heart to our hearts through the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and this would stand consistent with my understanding of chadashah (Jer. 31) and kainos (Heb. 8). In addition to that... Yeshua earned the right to perfect, restore, gather... but while the process has begun, the total fulfillment stands before us. May it be in our lifetime achi.