Those Who Transgress the Torah, Dishonor YHWH.

[Servus]

First of all, there is no mention of Saturn day in this verse.

That said, the word (מקרא) means meeting.

Does your original post pertain to the seventh day Sabbath?

 

[HARK!]

Does your original post pertain to the seventh day Sabbath?

It pertains to the Torah.

 

[Servus]

It pertains to the Torah.

"The Sabbath and the Law forum is for discussing a variety of topics related to Sabbath day worship and keeping the law." However you're saying this thread has nothing to do with "Sabbath day worship", correct?

 

[HARK!]

"The Sabbath and the Law forum is for discussing a variety of topics related to Sabbath day worship and keeping the law." However you're saying this thread has nothing to do with "Sabbath day worship", correct?

I said it's about the Torah.

 

[DamianWarS]

That's a twisted statement.

The meaning of the dietary laws were not revealed in that event. A point was revealed through dietary laws in that event.

it's layered, but certainly, this is the meaning of a revealed layer, and I would argue the crux of the dietary system. Every aspect of the Mosaic law points to the new. the mosaic law focuses on the physical and concrete whereas the new focuses on the heart, a more core spiritual perspective which makes it more abstract. With Peter's vision, the reference is just more explicit.

How did Pharaoh know that it was wrong to take Abraham's wife?

because he wouldn't like if it Abraham took his wife, certainly he can flex his power and do it anyways but it's not hard to figure how an act like that hurts others. This is how universal morality works, you know it's wrong because you would feel wronged if it was done against you.

This is not of YHWH.

then who spoke to Peter through his vision?

Maybe. Maybe not. The first sin appears to have been the breaking of a dietary law.

you would have to unpack that. Since strips of bacon and shell fish weren't hanging on the tree then we may argue it was a form of dietary law but it is a different focus then what the law has so a different meaning. The two do not share the same goal.

YHWH himself said that he would write his Torah on our hearts. Do you have anything more than conjecture to support your supposition? Scripture please.

law indeed is written upon our hearts

2 Cor 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

so it is not the letter of the law we follow but the letter of Christ. It is not the etched stone we follow but the living ink of the spirit upon our hearts. anything written upon our hearts is an abstract reference

here's the same verse in an melayu language dialect (a language that I speak)

Karena telah ternyata, bahwa kamu adalah surat Isa Al-Masih, yang ditulis oleh pelayanan kami, ditulis bukan dengan tinta, tetapi dengan Roh dari Allah yang hidup, bukan pada loh-loh batu, melainkan pada loh-loh daging, yaitu di dalam hati manusia.

in this language, law is written upon our liver, not about our hearts. "hati" means liver, it does not mean heart but it carries the meaning of the organ of emotion in this language which is innately an abstract meaning. When law is written upon our hearts (or liver) law is not physically etched into our organs. it of the "Spirit of the living God" and is an abstract reference. to have verbatim law imprinted upon our hearts would be pointless because it serves no greater purpose then the law itself did. law written upon our hearts is a reference to being called out of law, and guided by the spirit. every time you make a reference to it you unknowingly counter your own argument.

(CLV) Jn 16:13
Yet whenever that may be coming—the spirit of truth—it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you.

you're going to have to add your commentary on this in order for me to understand what point you're making. The Holy Spirit and the Son are one with the Father. What the spirit speaks is of the Father and the same is of the Son. They do not bring a different message, but instead the same message in different forms. Law is an example of this message, but it is in physical form and limited to physical products, that's the point of the law, it's limits are baked in but it is there to echo the God's plan for salvation since he spoke "let there be light"

 

[HARK!]

this is the meaning of a revealed layer,

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[HARK!]

because he wouldn't like if it Abraham took his wife

You mean the Golden Rule?

 

[HARK!]

then who spoke to Peter through his vision?

It wasn't your imagination.

 

[HARK!]

you would have to unpack that. Since strips of bacon and shell fish weren't hanging on the tree then we may argue it was a form of dietary law but it is a different focus then what the law has so a different meaning. The two do not share the same goal.

3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

 

[HARK!]

law indeed is written upon our hearts

2 Cor 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

so it is not the letter of the law we follow but the letter of Christ. It is not the etched stone we follow but the living ink of the spirit upon our hearts. anything written upon our hearts is an abstract reference

here's the same verse in an melayu language dialect (a language that I speak)

Karena telah ternyata, bahwa kamu adalah surat Isa Al-Masih, yang ditulis oleh pelayanan kami, ditulis bukan dengan tinta, tetapi dengan Roh dari Allah yang hidup, bukan pada loh-loh batu, melainkan pada loh-loh daging, yaitu di dalam hati manusia.

in this language, law is written upon our liver, not about our hearts. "hati" means liver, it does not mean heart but it carries the meaning of the organ of emotion in this language which is innately an abstract meaning. When law is written upon our hearts (or liver) law is not physically etched into our organs. it of the "Spirit of the living God" and is an abstract reference. to have verbatim law imprinted upon our hearts would be pointless because it serves no greater purpose then the law itself did. law written upon our hearts is a reference to being called out of law, and guided by the spirit. every time you make a reference to it you unknowingly counter your own argument.

Have you ever heard of the law of noncontradiction?

 

[HARK!]

you're going to have to add your commentary on this in order for me to understand what point you're making

The Ruach Ha'Kodesh doesn't speak its' own will.

 

[DamianWarS]

3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

sure, call it a dietary law. but it's goal is different than the Mosaic dietary laws as well as its penalty. According to the text of the fall account the penalty for touching/eating the fruit was death. So even Edenic law points to death even before sin which again foreshadows a need for a savior. I'm not to worried about calling it dietary law but I fail to see the connection you're trying to make with mosaic dietary laws. This is also another reason why splitting laws up into categories is not a good idea as it we tend to fixate on tangential points that the text is not about.

 

[DamianWarS]

law of noncontradiction

sure, what's your point? the spirit or the son do not contradict the father or the law. there very clearly are laws made complete or no longer valued through the physical, such as with circumcision which was a sign of an everlasting covenant with Abraham and generations to come, Jesus was even circumcised. So if you understand circumcision as taking a noncontradictory focus then how is it when I bring up the same logic for something like the sabbath I'm accused of a contradiction? It's logic, and logic knows no bias. I'm treating all mosaic law the same because Christ doesn't tell me to call certain ones his favorite, yet I'm not one with the contradiction.

 

[HARK!]

sure, call it a dietary law. but it's goal is different than the Mosaic dietary laws as well as its penalty. According to the text of the fall account the penalty for touching/eating the fruit was death. So even Edenic law points to death even before sin which again foreshadows a need for a savior. I'm not to worried about calling it dietary law but I fail to see the connection you're trying to make with mosaic dietary laws. This is also another reason why splitting laws up into categories is not a good idea as it we tend to fixate on tangential points that the text is not about.

The penalty for transgressing the dietary laws is death; as we see in Deuteronomy 30.

This hasn't changed. YHWH doesn't change.


(CLV) Isa 66:15
For behold, Yahweh, with fire shall He come, And His chariots like a sweeping whirlwind, To bring back His anger with fury, And His rebuke with blazes of fire.

(CLV) Isa 66:16
For with fire Yahweh shall come to judge, And with His sword upon all flesh; And Yahweh's slain will be multitudinous.

(CLV) Isa 66:17
Those who sanctify themselves And who cleansed themselves for the gardens, going after one in their midst, Eating the flesh of swine and the abominable thing and the rodent, They shall be swept up together, averring is Yahweh;


(CLV) Re 2:20
But I have much against you, seeing that you pardon that woman of yours, Jezebel, who says that she is a prophetess, and is teaching and deceiving My slaves so as to commit prostitution and to be eating idol sacrifices.

 

[HARK!]

sure, what's your point?

law indeed is written upon our hearts

law written upon our hearts is a reference to being called out of law

 

[DamianWarS]

The penalty for transgressing the dietary laws is death; as we see in Deuteronomy 30.

This hasn't changed. YHWH doesn't change.

yes, the penalty of the law is death. Deu 30 shows that in more broad terms which would be inclusive of all the law not just a handful. this would include for example circumcision which is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant but is also explicitly a Mosaic law. This also by the way means those who transgress the law (all of us) should be put to death (all of us) and creates a need for a savior to save us.

I get in your vacuum certain laws are illuminated but outside that vacuum, Mosaic law is Mosaic law and there is no cause to cut Mosaic law into pieces so some may be valued and others dropped. This is a logic problem and if you want to reach me then it would be best to show the clear logic that supports it. All you're showing me is contradictory logic.

 

[DamianWarS]

sure, what's your point?

law indeed is written upon our hearts

law written upon our hearts is a reference to being called out of law

I'm not sure the intent of this silent post. can I ask you to be less cryptic with me and plainly state what's on your mind?

 

[HARK!]

yes, the penalty of the law is death. Deu 30 shows that in more broad terms which would be inclusive of all the law not just a handful. this would include for example circumcision which also is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant and is also explicitly a Mosaic law. This also by the way means those who transgress the law (all of us) should be put to death (all of us) and creates a need for a savior to save us.

I get in your vacuum certain laws are illuminated but outside that vacuum, Mosaic law is Mosaic law and there is no cause to cut Mosaic law into pieces so some may be valued and others dropped. This is a logic problem and if you want to reach me then it would be best to show the clear logic that supports it. All you're showing me is contradictory logic.

I'm not aware of where my logic is contradictory.

Maybe Yahshua can help with what I am saying.

(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

(CLV) Mt 5:20
For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness (keeping the law) should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

 

[HARK!]

I'm not sure the intent of this silent post. can I ask you to be less cryptic with me and plainly state what's on your mind?

This is my best attempt to make any sense of your nonsensical statement:

If the law that is written on our hearts is calling us out of the law; then it is not written on our hearts; and is no law at all.

YHWH has been explicitly telling us to write his Torah on our hearts since he gave his Torah to Moses.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not aware of where my logic is contradictory.

let's not pretent you don't know what I'm talking about.
two laws:

1. Circumcision
2. Sabbath

both are signs of everlasting covenants, both are for generations upon generations, both are a part of Mosaic law, and both were established before Mosaic law.

which do we follow according to the letter of law?
which do we not?

could this be interpreted as a contradiction by some? how would you defend it as a noncontradictory statement?

I'll give you a hint for my answer, they are both the same. So whatever logic I apply to one, is applied to the other.