Messiah and the Covenant

Yada Yah · #1 15th June 2012, 12:32 PM

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

tzadik · #2 15th June 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Yada Yah

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Great questions. Look forward to this discussion!

FWIW, I have searched and searched and can find ZERO evidence that Messiah EVER denounced or even 'changed' the Torah...

Yada Yah · #3 15th June 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by tzadik

Great questions. Look forward to this discussion!

FWIW, I have searched and searched and can find ZERO evidence that Messiah EVER denounced or even 'changed' the Torah...

It is great to have you in on the discussion Tsadik.

While my examination of Messiah's words has given me the same results, I will add that I did find His condmenation on religious leaders of His day, was not for promoting Yah's Torah teachings, but rather was for burdening His people with traditions and teachings that obscured them from relationally knowing (yada) God (Yah).

“Then Yahshua spoke to the large crowds and to His followers and students, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in a position of authority (kathizo- appointed themselves in charge, put themselves in a high position, conferred a kingdom upon themselves) in the important teachings and judgmental seat (kathedra) of Moshe; so then (oun- therefore, however, on the contrary, now and but) all that they convey accordingly (epo- say in regard to the previous subject (in this case the teachings and judgments of Moses)), follow that authored path (hodopoieo- bring forth the author’s cause) and observe, but do not do according to their (poieo me kata- do not be like them, don't conform the their accord, motives, viewpoints, and terms, do not follow or emulate their individual) ideas, deeds or behavior (ergon- business, undertakings, enterprise, acts, mindset, thoughts); for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.” (Mattityahu/Matthew 23:1-7)

Please note again that none of His words is a condemnation of Yah's written Torah instructions, but is of man made rules and traditions.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Steve Petersen · #4 15th June 2012, 04:43 PM

Hmm, Sacred Name, Shem Tov Matthew, definite Karaite leanings...

Most people I have encountered with these characteristics are pretty well set in their views. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions.

Yada Yah · #5 15th June 2012, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

Hmm, Sacred Name, Shem Tov Matthew, definite Karaite leanings...

Most people I have encountered with these characteristics are pretty well set in their views. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions.

Greetings Steve,

I confess that I'm not as versed in the labels you've attributed as you seem to be. Please expand upon what views you anticipate based on them and I'll reply.

As I understand Karaite Judaism to mean accepting the Tanakh as inspired Scripture and more authoritative than other sources of revelation, than this would appear to apply to Messiah as in the passage I cited above.

As for Sacred Names, the God of Yisrael has a name and it is used 7,000 times in the Tanakh and it is not the title LORD, although it is by tradition replaced in every instance in popular translations. Similarly in the earliest NT texts, Greek letter place holders were consistently for significant name's like God's or the Messiah's proper name due to the limitations of the Greek lettering system to vocalize the sounds needed to replicate them into that language. I recognize that most people prefer familiar though errant anglicized replacements or substitute these with titles. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Clare73 · #6 15th June 2012, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Yada Yah

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Hi Yada Yah,

I think I hear a misunderstanding in your question, that the Law itself was a curse.

Dt 27:26; Jer 11:3 - "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
(Gal 3:10)

The Law itself was not a curse, the curse was the penalty for keeping the Law imperfectly (transgression).

That's why Paul states: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse. . .Clearly no one is justified (ed: made righteous before God) by the law. . .Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:10-14)

So nowhere does Scripture state that the law itself was a curse.

Does this clear it up?

Now I would like to ask what you think of Paul.
If his claim to "speak for Jesus" is not credible, why do you think he made it?
Was he lying. . .mistaken. . .misinformed. . .transmitting incorrectly. . .misunderstood. . .insane. . .etc.?

Kind regards,
Clare

Yada Yah · #7 15th June 2012, 08:30 PM

Hello Clare,

I just lost my attempted post (argh) so will try to recreate my thoughts and post before I lose it again.

Let us look at two of the passages you mention to see if they truly align:

"For (gar) as long as (hosos – as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon – by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under (hupo – influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara – they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): ‘All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos – exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno – continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion – documented record) of the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

"Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth) the words (dabar – the message) of this (zo’t) Towrah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with (‘eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – nation) said (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – affirming, supportive, and verifiable).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse." The second is true: "All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahweh. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy?

As for why Paul did as he did, in truth I can only speculate, but will do so so if you like, as there appears to be clues. As I hinted in the other thread, I see some similarities with Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, who also claimed a post ascension encounter one he called Isa the Christ.

I am curious what you think of Macionism as a promoter of Pauline doctrine within Christianity?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Clare73 · #8 15th June 2012, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Yada Yah

Hello Clare,

I just lost my attempted post (argh) so will try to recreate my thoughts and post before I lose it again.

Let us look at two of the passages you mention to see if they truly align:

"For (gar) as long as (hosos – as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon – by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under (hupo – influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara – they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): ‘All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos – exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno – continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion – documented record) of the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

"Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth) the words (dabar – the message) of this (zo’t) Towrah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with (‘eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – nation) said (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – affirming, supportive, and verifiable).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse." The second is true: "All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahweh. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy?

As for why Paul did as he did, in truth I can only speculate, but will do so so if you like, as there appears to be clues. As I hinted in the other thread, I see some similarities with Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, who also claimed a post ascension encounter one he called Isa the Christ.

I am curious what you think of Macionism as a promoter of Pauline doctrine within Christianity?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Hi, Yada Yah,

I just lost one of my posts also. . .so frustrating. . .our keyboards must be connected.

So what is this translation you use in your first translation?
Could we just use the content of the translations that are used today for the NT, and not introduce another issue?
The NT nowhere states that the law itself is a curse.
It states that transgression of it brings a curse.
So have we disposed of a misunderstanding of the NT record in that regard?

And you think Paul was mistaken?
Yet the leaders of the Church, Peter, James and John, the author of the Gospel, agreed his revelation was from Jesus the Christ, with Peter even grouping Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16).
So I think we have the evidence we need that Paul was not mistaken about the source or the content of his revelation, since Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, saw it the same way.

Regarding Macionism, I prefer to keep our discussion to the Scriptures themselves, for that is where the problem is said to be.

So in that regard, we have looked at Mt 5:17-18 (here and here), where grammatically "until heaven and earth pass away" is the overall time frame of the condition, and "until the law be fulfilled and accomplished" is the condition itself, which has been met,

we've looked at Gal 3:10 (here), which does not state that the law is a curse, but that transgression of it brings a curse, and

above, we've looked at the NT record's evidence for Paul's claim that he received revelation from Jesus the Christ, which shows that Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, likewise believed his revelation was from Jesus the Christ.

So have we cleared up anything regarding the NT record of these three?

Kind regards,
Clare

tzadik · #9 16th June 2012, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Clare73

So we have looked at Mt 5:17-18, where the law will not disappear before it is fulfilled and accomplished, which it now is,
and we've looked at Gal 3:10, which does not state that the law is a curse.

Have we cleared up anything in their regard?

Kind regards,
Clare

We certainly have NOT cleared up Matthew 5:17-20...

The word fufilled (plerios) in verse 17 DEFINITELY does not mean "fulfilled" in the sense of a prophetic fulfillment!

I already showed you that MANY things have YET to be fulfilled, in that sense.
There is a WHOLE part two to come.
Yes Messiah fulfilled everything concerning His FIRST COMING, but to suggest that Messiah fulfilled (prophetically) the ENTIRE LAW and the PROPHETS is too far a stretch, and simply not true.

This fact alone disproves your usage of "fulfilled as a prophetic term" in the passage...

Not to mention a whole second condition called "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS"...

Clare73 · #10 16th June 2012, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by tzadik

We certainly have NOT cleared up Matthew 5:17-20...

The word fufilled (plerios) in verse 17 DEFINITELY does not mean "fulfilled" in the sense of a prophetic fulfillment!

I already showed you that MANY things have YET to be fulfilled, in that sense.
There is a WHOLE part two to come.
Yes Messiah fulfilled everything concerning His FIRST COMING, but to suggest that Messiah fulfilled (prophetically) the ENTIRE LAW and the PROPHETS is too far a stretch, and simply not true.

This fact alone disproves your usage of "fulfilled as a prophetic term" in the passage...

Not to mention a whole second condition called "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS"...

Grammatically, "until the passing of heaven and earth" is the overall time frame of the condition.
The condition itself is "until all is fulfilled and accomplished."

All of that is addressed here and here regarding its accomplishment, fulfillment and what his words mean.

And much of what you consider future fulfillment is based in uncertain private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy given in riddles (Nu 12:4-6, explained in my third response here), which interpretation is not authoritative, but personal.
My discussions of Scripture include only what is certain in Scripture, which private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is not.