• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

GOD'S DIETARY LAWS AND BAT SOUP STEW - COVID 19

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
And the brothers and sisters in the Church in Galatia to whom he addressed the letter. And by extension, all the Christians who read and believe the Bible is God’s Word today.


You can suggest that I assume too much all you want. I am just reading what the Scripture says. The Old Covenant was a schoolmaster/guardian, and that guardian is no longer relevant to any Christian today. We do not need a guardian, because we have access directly to the Father.

I have seen no evidence in Scripture to support such a thing.

No, read it again. Jerusalem from above is Christ, figuratively the child of Sarah. Hagar is Mt. Sinai and the covenant that came from it.

It says clearly in the text that the Old Covenant is Hagar, the slave mother of slaves. The new Covenant in Christ is Sarah, the free mother of freemen.

Galatians 4:22-23 KJV
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

One born of the flesh: the other through the promise. The one born of the flesh is Yishmael. The one born through the promise is obviously Yitzhak.

Galatians 4:24 KJV
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This concerns an allegory of the two covenants. The one from mount Sinai, which is "of below" engenders bondage because all who see and hear the Torah according to the natural eyes and mind of the flesh put themselves into bondage trying to keep the Torah according to the flesh. This is represented in the allegory by Hagar, an Egyptian, and as the scripture speaks about in many places concerning the allegory, Egypt represents the flesh.

Galatians 4:25 KJV
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Hagar being likened to mount Sinai in Arabia answers to Yerushalem "which now is", meaning that this concerns Yerushalem "of below", the natural physical city of below. At the time, what Paul says here was true: Yerushalem of below was in bondage with her children, for her "children" misunderstood the Torah because they understood everything according the natural mind of the natural man, seeing all things according to the natural eyes and mind of the carnal minded man.

Galatians 4:26 KJV
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Yerushalem of above is free, and is the mother of all those who understand the very same Torah and Word of Elohim according to the Spirit, and especially in this time in which Paul writes this, those who understood the Torah according to the Testimony of the Messiah who had come by the time Paul writes this.

Sarah is Yerushalem of above in this allegory.

Galatians 4:27 KJV
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Fully explained by reading the background context, as already posted previously: Yerushalem above is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle of the Torah. This means that, just as the Master says to Nikodemos, Amen, amen, you are required to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything because your entire physical minded understanding of the Torah is no different from the first century Pharisees: the only real difference is that you reject it instead of trying to walk in it.

Galatians 4:28 KJV
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Children of the promise walk in the Word of Elohim according to the Spirit and the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts. They do not claim that the Word of Elohim is cancelled or abolished: those are the children of Hagar because they are not capable of understanding the Torah, and are repulsed by it because they only walk according to the eyes and mind of the natural man who sees all things according to the flesh.

Galatians 4:28 KJV
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

And that is the thrust of the argument: the Flesh vs the Spirit, as always, and the natural minded man cannot please Elohim just as Paul likewise says.

Sarah -vs- Hagar (Egypt, great of flesh, Eze 16:26)
Horeb (of above) -vs- Sinai (of below)
Yerushalem (of above) -vs- Yerushalem (of below)
Yitzhak -vs- Yishmael
The Spirit -vs- the Flesh

And the fleshwalkers are always persecuting those born of the Spirit.

Exodus 33:4-6
4 And when the people heard this bad word, they mourned, and no one put his headgear upon him:
5 for YHWH had said to Mosheh, Say unto bnei Yisrael, You are a stiff-necked people: I will come up into the midst of you in the wink of an eye and consume you! therefore now put off your headgear from you, and I will show you what I will do with you.
6 And bnei Yisrael plucked off their headgear from mount Horeb.

Their headgear was literally on mount Horeb, and that's a strictly literal reading of the text which you will not find in your favorite translation because the natural minded modern scribe can neither see nor accept such things. The mountain of Elohim, mount Horeb, is of above and of the mind: and the Torah is spiritual, supernal, internal, and of the heart and mind. You can claim it is cancelled all you want but your righteousness will never exceed that of the Pharisees and Scribes because you view the Torah the same way they did and do: according to the flesh, the natural, and the physical.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Galatians 4:22-23 KJV
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

One born of the flesh: the other through the promise. The one born of the flesh is Yishmael. The one born through the promise is obviously Yitzhak.

Galatians 4:24 KJV
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This concerns an allegory of the two covenants. The one from mount Sinai, which is "of below" engenders bondage because all who see and hear the Torah according to the natural eyes and mind of the flesh put themselves into bondage trying to keep the Torah according to the flesh. This is represented in the allegory by Hagar, an Egyptian, and as the scripture speaks about in many places concerning the allegory, Egypt represents the flesh.

Galatians 4:25 KJV
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Hagar being likened to mount Sinai in Arabia answers to Yerushalem "which now is", meaning that this concerns Yerushalem "of below", the natural physical city of below. At the time, what Paul says here was true: Yerushalem of below was in bondage with her children, for her "children" misunderstood the Torah because they understood everything according the natural mind of the natural man, seeing all things according to the natural eyes and mind of the carnal minded man.

Galatians 4:26 KJV
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
So far you are absolutely correct.
Yerushalem of above is free, and is the mother of all those who understand the very same Torah and Word of Elohim according to the Spirit, and especially in this time in which Paul writes this, those who understood the Torah according to the Testimony of the Messiah who had come by the time Paul writes this.
The Covenant from Above is the New Covenant in Jesus. As you noted above, this allegory is about TWO Covenants, not one that is renewed, or recommitted.
Sarah is Yerushalem of above in this allegory.

Galatians 4:27 KJV
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Fully explained by reading the background context, as already posted previously: Yerushalem above is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle of the Torah. This means that, just as the Master says to Nikodemos, Amen, amen, you are required to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything because your entire physical minded understanding of the Torah is no different from the first century Pharisees: the only real difference is that you reject it instead of trying to walk in it.
Where did Jesus tell Nikodemos that he did indeed have to go back into the womb? That is not in Scripture.

No, He said we must be born of water and the Spirit, not reenter our mother’s womb. And he is not being figurative in saying we have to reenter Torah with a spiritual mindset instead of a physical one. No, He is talking about a NEW COVENANT.
Galatians 4:28 KJV
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Children of the promise walk in the Word of Elohim according to the Spirit and the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.
Again, this part is correct.
They do not claim that the Word of Elohim is cancelled or abolished: those are the children of Hagar because they are not capable of understanding the Torah, and are repulsed by it because they only walk according to the eyes and mind of the natural man who sees all things according to the flesh.
And again you fall off the path with your focus on keeping the Old Covenant. It is the children of Hagar that adhere to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the covenant of the flesh.
Galatians 4:28 KJV
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

And that is the thrust of the argument: the Flesh vs the Spirit, as always, and the natural minded man cannot please Elohim just as Paul likewise says.

Sarah -vs- Hagar (Egypt, great of flesh, Eze 16:26)
Horeb (of above) -vs- Sinai (of below)
Yerushalem (of above) -vs- Yerushalem (of below)
Yitzhak -vs- Yishmael
The Spirit -vs- the Flesh

And the fleshwalkers are always persecuting those born of the Spirit.
And the Old Covenant is of the flesh
And the New Covenant is of the Spirit.
Exodus 33:4-6
4 And when the people heard this bad word, they mourned, and no one put his headgear upon him:
5 for YHWH had said to Mosheh, Say unto bnei Yisrael, You are a stiff-necked people: I will come up into the midst of you in the wink of an eye and consume you! therefore now put off your headgear from you, and I will show you what I will do with you.
6 And bnei Yisrael plucked off their headgear from mount Horeb.

Their headgear was literally on mount Horeb, and that's a strictly literal reading of the text which you will not find in your favorite translation because the natural minded modern scribe can neither see nor accept such things. The mountain of Elohim, mount Horeb, is of above and of the mind: and the Torah is spiritual, supernal, internal, and of the heart and mind. You can claim it is cancelled all you want but your righteousness will never exceed that of the Pharisees and Scribes because you view the Torah the same way they did and do: according to the flesh, the natural, and the physical.
So their headgear was on Mt Horeb? Not on their heads? That is an interesting take on that passage. It doesn’t seem reasonable to read it that way, but you can if you like. It seems more reasonable to read it, as the majority of translations have it, as “from that time forward”.

But then, I’m not really sure what that passage has to do with the price of cheese. It is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The Covenant from Above is the New Covenant in Jesus. As you noted above, this allegory is about TWO Covenants, not one that is renewed, or recommitted.

Your opinion is not taught in the scripture.

Where did Jesus tell Nikodemos that he did indeed have to go back into the womb? That is not in Scripture.

Right when Nikodemos asked him about it. Amen, amen is a double affirmation. The first Amen is the answer to his question: the second is the lead in to what follows.

John 3:5
5 απεκριθη ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω σοι εαν μη τις γεννηθη εξ υδατος και πνευματος ου δυναται εισελθειν εις την βασιλειαν του θεου


No, He said we must be born of water and the Spirit, not reenter our mother’s womb. And he is not being figurative in saying we have to reenter Torah with a spiritual mindset instead of a physical one. No, He is talking about a NEW COVENANT.

Yes, he is, as shown from the actual text above. Moreover Paul teaches the same in Galatians.

Galatians 1:15-17 KJV
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

This isn't about physical birth: or do you suppose Elohim called Paul from the womb as a natural born babe? Paul had to do the same as Nikodemos, that is, go back into the womb of his mother and relearn everything. Isn't this the same epistle we are already talking about? where he says Yerushalem of above is our mother (covenant)?

Yes, it is, and this is not something new under the sun: the Prophets teach the same, study Isaiah 49 and Jeremiah 1:5-10. And moreover Timothy is spoken of in the same manner, in 2 Timothy 3:15, which says, "from a babe you have known the sacred writings", (brephos, an infant, and sometimes even yet unborn). Timothy didn't come out of the physical womb of his physical mother knowing the sacred writings. You are proving what I already said about the Spirit vs. the mind of the flesh.

And again you fall off the path with your focus on keeping the Old Covenant. It is the children of Hagar that adhere to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the covenant of the flesh.

Not according to Paul. He is teaching that the old way of interpreting the covenant is the old. One of the greatest reasons for Messiah to come was to fill up the Torah and fully expound the Torah, Prophets, and Writings so that his followers might truly understand and know and walk in the truth. The old way is according to the flesh: the new way is the new Spirit foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel. The new Spirit is the correct interpretation of the covenant because the old way of understanding was not correct, having been based on the natural mind of the natural man. Paul teaches this also but apparently you don't have anyone capable of seeing it, understanding it, and properly translating it when they see it.

And the Old Covenant is of the flesh
And the New Covenant is of the Spirit.

Yes, but as it is taught in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings: not according to taking Paul's words only and then twisting them to make up our own doctrines.

So their headgear was on Mt Horeb? Not on their heads? That is an interesting take on that passage. It doesn’t seem reasonable to read it that way, but you can if you like. It seems more reasonable to read it, as the majority of translations have it, as “from that time forward”.

Again you missed the point: your own head, (mind), is mount Horeb, for the Torah is spiritual just as Paul says. The Torah-teaching of Elohim is of above, of the mind, and thus, Horeb, (Romans 7:25). The Torah-teaching of sin and death is to be used against the flesh, and thus, of below, and therefore Sinai, (Romans 7:25). Do you not believe Paul when he says he employs both?

Romans 7:22-25 KJV
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The mind is Horeb. The flesh is Sinai. And there is a torah-teaching for each: the Torah of Elohim is of above, of the mind, for the inward man, and thus it is represented metaphorically by Horeb the mountain of Elohim. The torah-teaching concerning sin and death is to be used against the flesh, to mortify or put to death our members concerning below, (or as Paul says, "your members upon the earth", that is, of below, the physical), and this torah-teaching is called by Paul the Torah of sin and death, and it is represented metaphorically as Sinai. But of course we all know, or should know, that both of these metaphors come from the very same mountain which is called both Horeb and Sinai. That is because the two covenants are the same: the difference being how the hearer understands what he or she hears in the Torah.

Mosheh admonishes all who see, hear, and read the Torah, that he has set before them life and good, death and evil, life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, (Deuteronomy 30:10-20, a passage that Paul also quotes from in Romans 10:6-8). Those who choose to read, hear, see, and understand the Torah according to the old man nature, and according to the carnal minded way of interpreting and understanding the Torah and even all scripture: the same choose death, whether they realize it or not.

But then, I’m not really sure what that passage has to do with the price of cheese. It is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

I suppose that's what happens when someone believes that all of the background teaching material for Paul's discourses has been canceled or abolished.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your opinion is not taught in the scripture.
Not my opinion. This is taken directly from Scripture.
Right when Nikodemos asked him about it. Amen, amen is a double affirmation. The first Amen is the answer to his question: the second is the lead in to what follows.

John 3:5
5 απεκριθη ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω σοι εαν μη τις γεννηθη εξ υδατος και πνευματος ου δυναται εισελθειν εις την βασιλειαν του θεου
“Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Jesus is not agreeing with Nicodemus. He is making an emphatically true statement.
Yes, he is, as shown from the actual text above. Moreover Paul teaches the same in Galatians.
Galatians 1:15-17 KJV
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

This isn't about physical birth: or do you suppose Elohim called Paul from the womb as a natural born babe? Paul had to do the same as Nikodemos, that is, go back into the womb of his mother and relearn everything. Isn't this the same epistle we are already talking about? where he says Yerushalem of above is our mother (covenant)?
No, this is not about physical birth or rebirth. This is about spiritual birth under the NEW COVENANT! Jerusalem of above is Christ and the New Covenant in His blood.
Not according to Paul. He is teaching that the old way of interpreting the covenant is the old. One of the greatest reasons for Messiah to come was to fill up the Torah and fully expound the Torah, Prophets, and Writings so that his followers might truly understand and know and walk in the truth. The old way is according to the flesh: the new way is the new Spirit foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel. The new Spirit is the correct interpretation of the covenant because the old way of understanding was not correct, having been based on the natural mind of the natural man. Paul teaches this also but apparently you don't have anyone capable of seeing it, understanding it, and properly translating it when they see it.
On the contrary, I have worshipped (and my in-laws still worship) with a Messianic Jewish Congregation here in Atlanta. And the “rabbi” who ministers there (a good friend of mine) believes that the Old Covenant was ended, and the New Covenant was established in Jesus. We are no longer subject to ANY of the commands from the OC. The NC is not just a new understanding of the old Law, but an entirely new Covenant, not with the blood of bulls and goats, but the blood of the Lamb.
Yes, but as it is taught in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings: not according to taking Paul's words only and then twisting them to make up our own doctrines.
This is not my doctrine. This is Jesus own word, Luke 22:20 - “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”, and God through Paul agrees, 1 Cor 11:25 - “In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
This is not the blood of the Old Covenant, His is the blood of the New Covenant.
Again you missed the point: your own head, (mind), is mount Horeb, for the Torah is spiritual just as Paul says. The Torah-teaching of Elohim is of above, of the mind, and thus, Horeb, (Romans 7:25). The Torah-teaching of sin and death is to be used against the flesh, and thus, of below, and therefore Sinai, (Romans 7:25). Do you not believe Paul when he says he employs both?

Romans 7:22-25 KJV
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The mind is Horeb. The flesh is Sinai. And there is a torah-teaching for each: the Torah of Elohim is of above, of the mind, for the inward man, and thus it is represented metaphorically by Horeb the mountain of Elohim. The torah-teaching concerning sin and death is to be used against the flesh, to mortify or put to death our members concerning below, (or as Paul says, "your members upon the earth", that is, of below, the physical), and this torah-teaching is called by Paul the Torah of sin and death, and it is represented metaphorically as Sinai. But of course we all know, or should know, that both of these metaphors come from the very same mountain which is called both Horeb and Sinai. That is because the two covenants are the same: the difference being how the hearer understands what he or she hears in the Torah.

Mosheh admonishes all who see, hear, and read the Torah, that he has set before them life and good, death and evil, life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, (Deuteronomy 30:10-20, a passage that Paul also quotes from in Romans 10:6-8). Those who choose to read, hear, see, and understand the Torah according to the old man nature, and according to the carnal minded way of interpreting and understanding the Torah and even all scripture: the same choose death, whether they realize it or not.
I do not believe for a moment that there is not value in reading Torah. It is very valuable and necessary for gaining insight into the precepts of the New Covenant. But we are no longer subject to ANY of the laws, commands, or precepts contained in it as they have been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. As God says, if you seek to keep even one of the commands of the OT (keeping it because it is a command in the OT), then you are subjecting yourself to keep ALL of the OT commands perfectly, and you are cut off from Christ (Gal 5:2-6).
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Not my opinion. This is taken directly from Scripture.

Then post the scripture where your statement, "this allegory is about TWO Covenants, not one that is renewed, or recommitted", is confirmed.

“Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Jesus is not agreeing with Nicodemus. He is making an emphatically true statement.

You appear to be ignoring the first Amen and only counting the second which leads into what follows, (his emphatic statement). Nikodemos: "How can a person be born when he is old? Can he enter into the womb of his mother a second time and be born?" Answer: Amen, which is to say, "So be it", essentially, Yes, and the second Amen immediately follows, meaning something like, "Truly, (Verily, Surely, etc.), I say to you..."

No, this is not about physical birth or rebirth. This is about spiritual birth under the NEW COVENANT! Jerusalem of above is Christ and the New Covenant in His blood.

So then, according to your theory, the bride of the Messiah is the Messiah in the Apocalypse?

Revelation 21:2-5 KJV
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [2 Cor 5:17]
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. [2 Cor 5:17] And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Has it not been shown from the scripture that Yerushalem of above is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle? We see here almost the same: new Yerushalem descending from the heavens as a bride adorned for her husband, and we read the words in the same passage, "Behold, the Tabernacle of Elohim is with men". What is the difference here? Like father, like son: like mother like daughter. New Yerushalem is therefore the daughter of Yerushalem, the new-renewed covenant.

Did the Master have the new-renewed Covenant with him in the Gospel accounts? Yes, and it is his Testimony which, as I have said, fully expounds for us the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. His blood is tantamount to his all-important Testimony because he paid for that Testimony which he received from the Father with his own blood. John 3:26-36 tells us that the Master already had the bride in the Gospel accounts and Mat 21:4-5 explains this with a quote from the Prophets pertaining to the daughter of Yerushalem, (the new-renewed covenant).

John 3:26-29 KJV
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Matthew 21:4-5 KJV
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. [Zec 9:9]

Every metaphorical-allegorical saying in the scripture fits perfectly with the others.

On the contrary, I have worshipped (and my in-laws still worship) with a Messianic Jewish Congregation here in Atlanta. And the “rabbi” who ministers there (a good friend of mine) believes that the Old Covenant was ended, and the New Covenant was established in Jesus. We are no longer subject to ANY of the commands from the OC. The NC is not just a new understanding of the old Law, but an entirely new Covenant, not with the blood of bulls and goats, but the blood of the Lamb.

The things I speak are not just in the scripture but proven by the logos-reasoning contained therein and specifically the Logos of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts. Just because someone claims to be Messianic, or even a Rabbi, doesn't mean they have correct doctrines and beliefs.

This is not my doctrine. This is Jesus own word, Luke 22:20 - “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”, and God through Paul agrees, 1 Cor 11:25 - “In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
This is not the blood of the Old Covenant, His is the blood of the New Covenant.

There are multiple cups at the Seder. The first cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark does not contain the word kainos, (new or renewed), in the oldest manuscripts.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

The observant reader may see from the contexts that this is the same cup mentioned in Luke 22:17, but is not the cup which you have brought up because that one is after the first which is mentioned in Matthew and Mark. We therefore have multiple covenants confirmed. The first mention in Matthew, Mark, and Luke 22:17, is the covenant concerning "the many", while the new-renewed covenant is personal, private, and individual, "for you", (at that point, firstly, his disciples who had endured with him through his ministry).

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Mat 26:29, Mark 14:25]
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

One does not get to drink of the latter cup after the supper while having skipped the main meal.

I do not believe for a moment that there is not value in reading Torah. It is very valuable and necessary for gaining insight into the precepts of the New Covenant. But we are no longer subject to ANY of the laws, commands, or precepts contained in it as they have been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. As God says, if you seek to keep even one of the commands of the OT (keeping it because it is a command in the OT), then you are subjecting yourself to keep ALL of the OT commands perfectly, and you are cut off from Christ (Gal 5:2-6).

More incorrect understanding. Here is what the passage actually says.

Galatians 5:2-6
1 For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.

Who is telling you that you need to go get physically circumcised? Have you not heard what I have said? That is the natural and outward minded understanding of the Torah: and if indeed you go get circumcised, according to modern Judaism, it is a seal even to this day, and likewise it essentially seals your fate if you follow through, since you must agree and pledge to enter into all the teachings of the Pharisees to become a Jew, so as to join (their version) of Yisrael.

Nothing has changed from when Paul wrote this passage to this day. The reason Paul says what he does is because, if you go get circumcised, beginning the process of becoming a Jew, then you must reject the supernal-spiritual inward teachings and interpretations of the Torah provided freely for you in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts where he refutes their interpretations of the Torah. Again, the Master paid for that Testimony with his life and blood: you appear to be unaware that you are basically saying that he did it all for nothing because the Father's Word is now canceled. Why would the true and correct understanding of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, need to be expounded if it was all about to be canceled anyway?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then post the scripture where your statement, "this allegory is about TWO Covenants, not one that is renewed, or recommitted", is confirmed.
Gal 4:21-31 - “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one [one covenant] coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.[this is the Old Covenant]
You appear to be ignoring the first Amen and only counting the second which leads into what follows, (his emphatic statement). Nikodemos: "How can a person be born when he is old? Can he enter into the womb of his mother a second time and be born?" Answer: Amen, which is to say, "So be it", essentially, Yes, and the second Amen immediately follows, meaning something like, "Truly, (Verily, Surely, etc.), I say to you..."
No, I am not ignoring it. The first “amen” or “truly” is emphasizing the second. He is not agreeing with Nicodemus. Nicodemus is asking about physically going back into his mother’s womb as an adult man. Jesus basically ignores his statement and says, “Truly truly I say to you…” which is to say, “It is a true saying; you can take it to the bank; on my honor; etc”.
So then, according to your theory, the bride of the Messiah is the Messiah in the Apocalypse?

Revelation 21:2-5 KJV
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [2 Cor 5:17]
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. [2 Cor 5:17] And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
The story told in Galatians is an allegory. The references and connections made there do not necessarily carry over to other figurative events, like the Revelations of John.
Has it not been shown from the scripture that Yerushalem of above is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle? We see here almost the same: new Yerushalem descending from the heavens as a bride adorned for her husband, and we read the words in the same passage, "Behold, the Tabernacle of Elohim is with men". What is the difference here? Like father, like son: like mother like daughter. New Yerushalem is therefore the daughter of Yerushalem, the new-renewed covenant.
Not RENEWED. The Old Covenant was renewed over and over. It started with Abraham, and was renewed with Isaac, and was renewed with Jacob, and was renewed with Moses. But it was not renewed in Christ. He set aside the Old and established a NEW! The Old was made obsolete in Him, and a New, perfect Covenant was established.
Did the Master have the new-renewed Covenant with him in the Gospel accounts? Yes, and it is his Testimony which, as I have said, fully expounds for us the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. His blood is tantamount to his all-important Testimony because he paid for that Testimony which he received from the Father with his own blood. John 3:26-36 tells us that the Master already had the bride in the Gospel accounts and Mat 21:4-5 explains this with a quote from the Prophets pertaining to the daughter of Yerushalem, (the new-renewed covenant).

John 3:26-29 KJV
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Matthew 21:4-5 KJV
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. [Zec 9:9]
None of this impacts the fact that the covenant is NEW, not REnewed.
Every metaphorical-allegorical saying in the scripture fits perfectly with the others.
This is true, but that does not mean that the same analogy holds true from one to the other.
The things I speak are not just in the scripture but proven by the logos-reasoning contained therein and specifically the Logos of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts. Just because someone claims to be Messianic, or even a Rabbi, doesn't mean they have correct doctrines and beliefs.
Very true. I disagree with some of his doctrine (other areas than this), but my point was that he speaks, reads, and writes Hebrew. He has read the Hebrew Scriptures and would disagree with your interpretation that we are still under the Law.
There are multiple cups at the Seder. The first cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark does not contain the word kainos, (new or renewed), in the oldest manuscripts.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Matthew and Mark do not say which cup, nor do they say New Covenant. However, seeing as it is the same language for them as it is in Luke and John, it is reasonable to say that the cup mentioned is the same (the third cup, the cup of redemption) in all of them. This is very similar to the different things said in all four Gospels about what the plaque over Jesus’ head on the cross said.
More incorrect understanding. Here is what the passage actually says.

Galatians 5:2-6
1 For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.

Who is telling you that you need to go get physically circumcised? Have you not heard what I have said? That is the natural and outward minded understanding of the Torah: and if indeed you go get circumcised, according to modern Judaism, it is a seal even to this day, and likewise it essentially seals your fate if you follow through, since you must agree and pledge to enter into all the teachings of the Pharisees to become a Jew, so as to join (their version) of Yisrael.

Nothing has changed from when Paul wrote this passage to this day. The reason Paul says what he does is because, if you go get circumcised, beginning the process of becoming a Jew, then you must reject the supernal-spiritual inward teachings and interpretations of the Torah provided freely for you in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts where he refutes their interpretations of the Torah. Again, the Master paid for that Testimony with his life and blood: you appear to be unaware that you are basically saying that he did it all for nothing because the Father's Word is now canceled. Why would the true and correct understanding of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, need to be expounded if it was all about to be canceled anyway?
With one hand you say we are free from the Old Law, and then you say we must keep it. You can’t have it both ways.

We are freed from the Law in all respects. If you say we must keep ANY of the laws from the Law of Moses because it is part of the Law, then you bind yourself to keep the WHOLE Law. If you fail to keep ANY of the Law, then you are guilty of ALL of them. When was the last time you went to Jerusalem to sacrifice at the Temple with the Levite priests taking your offering?
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Gal 4:21-31 - “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one [one covenant] coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.[this is the Old Covenant]

Yes, the old covenant meaning that which was enforced by way of the handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees based on the old-man interpretations and traditions of the Elders, the Sanhedrin and its Elders, and the Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes: which faulty interpretations were against us because they were a product of man and the natural mind of the natural man which always interprets the Word of Elohim according to the mind of the flesh.

No, I am not ignoring it. The first “amen” or “truly” is emphasizing the second. He is not agreeing with Nicodemus. Nicodemus is asking about physically going back into his mother’s womb as an adult man. Jesus basically ignores his statement and says, “Truly truly I say to you…” which is to say, “It is a true saying; you can take it to the bank; on my honor; etc”.

You say you are not ignoring it and then you wash, rinse, and repeat the same thing again as if it is something different.

The story told in Galatians is an allegory. The references and connections made there do not necessarily carry over to other figurative events, like the Revelations of John.

Yes they do.

Not RENEWED.

Yes, renewed according to the Testimony of the Master himself. Study the wine-skin parables: kainos is refreshed-renewed while neos is brand-new.

The Old Covenant was renewed over and over. It started with Abraham, and was renewed with Isaac, and was renewed with Jacob, and was renewed with Moses. But it was not renewed in Christ. He set aside the Old and established a NEW! The Old was made obsolete in Him, and a New, perfect Covenant was established.

More scripture quotes and facts, and less opinion, would go much further.

None of this impacts the fact that the covenant is NEW, not REnewed.

This is true, but that does not mean that the same analogy holds true from one to the other.

Very true. I disagree with some of his doctrine (other areas than this), but my point was that he speaks, reads, and writes Hebrew. He has read the Hebrew Scriptures and would disagree with your interpretation that we are still under the Law.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Matthew and Mark do not say which cup, nor do they say New Covenant. However, seeing as it is the same language for them as it is in Luke and John, it is reasonable to say that the cup mentioned is the same (the third cup, the cup of redemption) in all of them. This is very similar to the different things said in all four Gospels about what the plaque over Jesus’ head on the cross said.

Really bad reading comprehension: I even noted the Matthew and Mark references in Luke 22:18 hoping that you would not resort to such a thing. Anyone with a willing heart, eyes to see, and ears to hear, can clearly see and understand that there are two different cups mentioned in the Luke passage and that the first cup in the Luke passage is the same cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark. The first cup is for the many, and that is likely referring to all of the former covenants as the many, which are being confirmed by and in the Messiah himself: otherwise you cannot even become a child of Abraham because you canceled him and his covenant.

With one hand you say we are free from the Old Law, and then you say we must keep it. You can’t have it both ways.

Huh???

We are freed from the Law in all respects. If you say we must keep ANY of the laws from the Law of Moses because it is part of the Law, then you bind yourself to keep the WHOLE Law. If you fail to keep ANY of the Law, then you are guilty of ALL of them.

That just sounds like an excuse for utter lawlessness: sorry, I am not buying the notion that you understand the passage to which you are referring.

When was the last time you went to Jerusalem to sacrifice at the Temple with the Levite priests taking your offering?

With my windows open toward Yerushalem, (of above), three times daily, my ascending offerings ascend before the Most High according to the understanding of the Torah taught to me by the Master in all his Testimony. Moreover the incense offerings ascend before the Most High by the hand of the Malak of the Altar, (and the seven are surely Kohanim according to Leviticus 16 and Revelation 15). Yet again you read the scripture according to the natural mind. Arise, kill, devour much flesh! :D
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the old covenant meaning that which was enforced by way of the handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees based on the old-man interpretations and traditions of the Elders, the Sanhedrin and its Elders, and the Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes: which faulty interpretations were against us because they were a product of man and the natural mind of the natural man which always interprets the Word of Elohim according to the mind of the flesh.
The “handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees based on the old-man interpretations and traditions of the Elders, the Sanhedrin and its Elders, and the Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes” was not the Covenant that God made. The Old Covenant came from Mt Sinai as the allegory points out. The Talmud and the other writings of the Pharisees came much, much later.
Yes, renewed according to the Testimony of the Master himself. Study the wine-skin parables: kainos is refreshed-renewed while neos is brand-new.
And you dont put new wine in old wine skins. You cannot put Jesus’ blood in the Old Covenant.
That just sounds like an excuse for utter lawlessness: sorry, I am not buying the notion that you understand the passage to which you are referring.
Not lawlessness! A NEW law! The law of the Spirit. The Old law is just that, OLD! It has been replaced by a new law and a NEW Covenant.
With my windows open toward Yerushalem, (of above), three times daily, my ascending offerings ascend before the Most High according to the understanding of the Torah taught to me by the Master in all his Testimony. Moreover the incense offerings ascend before the Most High by the hand of the Malak of the Altar, (and the seven are surely Kohanim according to Leviticus 16 and Revelation 15). Yet again you read the scripture according to the natural mind. Arise, kill, devour much flesh! :D
So you blatantly violate the commands of the Law, yet you think you will be vindicated by your keeping of the Law? There is no Temple in Jerusalem on which to offer your annual REQUIRED sacrifices, and no Levitical Priesthood to offer them. So you violate the Law by not offering your sacrifice as commanded. Yet you think there is salvation in keeping the Law?

Go, keep your Law (impossible for any but Christ), and I will keep Christ and His freedom.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The “handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees based on the old-man interpretations and traditions of the Elders, the Sanhedrin and its Elders, and the Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes” was not the Covenant that God made. The Old Covenant came from Mt Sinai as the allegory points out. The Talmud and the other writings of the Pharisees came much, much later.

The Torah is never called dogma, and dogma is indeed used in the LXX, but only for decrees and edicts in letters and pronouncements from kings and rulers of the people. You've misapplied the scripture in your haste to cancel the Torah. Moreover Paul even explains what he means in that same passage.

And you dont put new wine in old wine skins. You cannot put Jesus’ blood in the Old Covenant.

He commanded the wedding attendants to fill the six stone water cisterns with fresh water when they were already about two-thirds full, (two or three firkins each), and that water was for the purification of the Yhudim. Did he command them to empty the stone cisterns of the water for the purifications of the Yhudim before they added fresh water? No, he didn't, and thus he mixed the fresh water in with the water of the purification of the Yhudim: and that was the best wine, and not only that, but the very first miracle.

As for the wine-skin parables, why should I believe you over the Master?

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [neos] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [neos] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [neos] wine must be put into fresh [kainos] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; [neos] for he saith, The old is good.

I am not making stuff up as I go: it is exactly as I said, and the new-renewed covenant is kainos. The heart is the wineskin and that must be kainos-renewed before it can be filled with neos-new wine: but the neos new wine is the new Spirit just as I have said from Ezekiel the Prophet several times now, and it is not the only thing because it is mixed with the old, just as the miracle of the water to wine at the wedding in Kana shows us.

At the close of the parables in Matthew 13 we read:

Matthew 13:51-52 KJV
51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

Not lawlessness! A NEW law! The law of the Spirit. The Old law is just that, OLD! It has been replaced by a new law and a NEW Covenant.

Then why do you keep rejecting the Spirit in favor of the interpretations of the Pharisees? Do you think I haven't read Romans 8? What do you suppose I have been saying to you all this time?

So you blatantly violate the commands of the Law, yet you think you will be vindicated by your keeping of the Law? There is no Temple in Jerusalem on which to offer your annual REQUIRED sacrifices, and no Levitical Priesthood to offer them. So you violate the Law by not offering your sacrifice as commanded. Yet you think there is salvation in keeping the Law?

Spoken like a true Pharisee but your interpretations of the law were nailed to the stake. You should seriously think about uncancelling at least the Psalms and Prophets and start reading and studying what they actually have to say about your understanding of the Torah.

Go, keep your Law (impossible for any but Christ), and I will keep Christ and His freedom.

It is not possible to understand the freedom or liberty in the Messiah if one is not walking in the Testimony of the Messiah according to his teachings concerning the Torah. Your claim of freedom is empty because all you did was cancel the Word of Elohim to free yourself from it. The object in Paul's writings is not to cancel the scripture but to expound it so that the reader and hearer may understand and walk in peace and harmony with and in the Creator. That's why he says that the veil over the heart and mind, when reading the Torah, is taken away in Messiah. The object is to understand the Torah by way of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts: not to cancel the Torah of Elohim so that you can proclaim yourself free. How does cancelling the Torah of Elohim remove the veil from the heart and mind when reading the Torah? It does no such thing.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Torah is never called dogma, and dogma is indeed used in the LXX, but only for decrees and edicts in letters and pronouncements from kings and rulers of the people. You've misapplied the scripture in your haste to cancel the Torah. Moreover Paul even explains what he means in that same passage.
I didn’t call Torah dogma. I didn’t talk about dogma at all. You brought it up and I quoted you.
He commanded the wedding attendants to fill the six stone water cisterns with fresh water when they were already about two-thirds full, (two or three firkins each), and that water was for the purification of the Yhudim. Did he command them to empty the stone cisterns of the water for the purifications of the Yhudim before they added fresh water? No, he didn't, and thus he mixed the fresh water in with the water of the purification of the Yhudim: and that was the best wine, and not only that, but the very first miracle.
All true, and equally irrelevant to the conversation.

Then why do you keep rejecting the Spirit in favor of the interpretations of the Pharisees? Do you think I haven't read Romans 8? What do you suppose I have been saying to you all this time?
I do not reject the Spirit. I reject the Old Law as being binding on us today. Are they good practices that have healthful benefits? Absolutely. Is it sin to break them? Not in so far as keeping the Law. Murder is a violation of Jesus’ command, as is hate. Adultery is a violation of Jesus’ command, as is lust. But there is no command in the New Covenant to keep the sabbath. Is it a healthful thing to do? Yes. Is it sin to work on sabbath? NO!!!
Spoken like a true Pharisee but your interpretations of the law were nailed to the stake. You should seriously think about uncancelling at least the Psalms and Prophets and start reading and studying what they actually have to say about your understanding of the Torah.
I have said many times that the Old Testament is good and very beneficial to study to gain insight, knowledge, and understanding of God and His desire for our behavior. But I have also said that the OT is not a binding Law upon us under the New Covenant.
It is not possible to understand the freedom or liberty in the Messiah if one is not walking in the Testimony of the Messiah according to his teachings concerning the Torah. Your claim of freedom is empty because all you did was cancel the Word of Elohim to free yourself from it. The object in Paul's writings is not to cancel the scripture but to expound it so that the reader and hearer may understand and walk in peace and harmony with and in the Creator. That's why he says that the veil over the heart and mind, when reading the Torah, is taken away in Messiah. The object is to understand the Torah by way of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts: not to cancel the Torah of Elohim so that you can proclaim yourself free. How does cancelling the Torah of Elohim remove the veil from the heart and mind when reading the Torah? It does no such thing.
One last time, the New Covenant does not remove the lessons we learn, or the value we find in the OT. But it does cancel the requirements of the Law as being binding on anyone since His resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I didn’t call Torah dogma. I didn’t talk about dogma at all. You brought it up and I quoted you.

Colossians 2:14
14 εξαλειψας το καθ ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν [G1378 dogma] ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν και αυτο ηρκεν εκ του μεσου προσηλωσας αυτο τω σταυρω

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G1378 δόγμα dogma (d̮og'-ma) n.
1. that which is supposed as good or which seems right (whether it actually is or not).
2. (concisely) an opinion on a matter.
3. (by conclusion) a decree or ordinance (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical).
[from the base of G1380]
KJV: decree, ordinance

And as I also said, Paul explains what he means in the same passage:

Colossians 2:20-22 ASV
20 If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, [G1379 dogmatizo]
21 Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22 (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G1379 δογματίζω dogmatizo (d̮og-ma-tiy'-zō) v.
1. to prescribe by decree or statute.
2. (reflexively) to submit to decree, ceremonially rule by decree.
3. (passively) to be subject to decrees.
[from G1378]

According to what you have already proclaimed, you confess that the Torah is dogma and doctrines of men, by default, whether or not you realize it because of your own interpretation of this Colossians passage. You say Col 2:14 is talking about the Torah while Paul says he speaks of dogmas, and again, the Torah is never called dogma or dogmas anywhere by anyone in the scripture. Doubtless you learned your understanding of the passage from men because you didn't get it from the Word of Elohim. Casual readers get killed by the letter. Yes, the letter kills, but that applies to all the writings including Paul's letters, not just the Torah: otherwise we would not have that serious warning about Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

I may or may not reply to the remainder of your response in another post but it looks like we are done here. When someone says something like, "One last time", toward the end of a response, I take it as that the person is getting too frustrated and has had enough. That's okay, I'm in no hurry, maybe I'll see you around in another thread.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Colossians 2:14
14 εξαλειψας το καθ ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν [G1378 dogma] ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν και αυτο ηρκεν εκ του μεσου προσηλωσας αυτο τω σταυρω

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G1378 δόγμα dogma (d̮og'-ma) n.
1. that which is supposed as good or which seems right (whether it actually is or not).
2. (concisely) an opinion on a matter.
3. (by conclusion) a decree or ordinance (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical).
[from the base of G1380]
KJV: decree, ordinance

And as I also said, Paul explains what he means in the same passage:

Colossians 2:20-22 ASV
20 If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, [G1379 dogmatizo]
21 Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22 (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G1379 δογματίζω dogmatizo (d̮og-ma-tiy'-zō) v.
1. to prescribe by decree or statute.
2. (reflexively) to submit to decree, ceremonially rule by decree.
3. (passively) to be subject to decrees.
[from G1378]

According to what you have already proclaimed, you confess that the Torah is dogma and doctrines of men, by default, whether or not you realize it because of your own interpretation of this Colossians passage. You say Col 2:14 is talking about the Torah while Paul says he speaks of dogmas, and again, the Torah is never called dogma or dogmas anywhere by anyone in the scripture. Doubtless you learned your understanding of the passage from men because you didn't get it from the Word of Elohim. Casual readers get killed by the letter. Yes, the letter kills, but that applies to all the writings including Paul's letters, not just the Torah: otherwise we would not have that serious warning about Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

I may or may not reply to the remainder of your response in another post but it looks like we are done here. When someone says something like, "One last time", toward the end of a response, I take it as that the person is getting too frustrated and has had enough. That's okay, I'm in no hurry, maybe I'll see you around in another thread.
Gal 4 does not talk about dogmas, or precepts or doctrines. It talks about the Covenant from God (again, not the ordinances of man), and how that Covenant was “driven out” in favor of a New Covenant. Hagar was not “renewed” into Sarah. No, Sarah is a completely different wife (Covenant) from Hagar. From Gal 3:15 all the way through to the end of Gal 4, God explains the purpose of the Law, and its place in the Old Covenant. And the fact that the Old Covenant was replaced, not with a renewal of the Old Covenant, but with a New Covenant. “But what does the Scripture say?
“Drive out the slave woman and her son,
For the son of the slave woman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.
So then, brothers and sisters, we are not children of a slave woman, but of the free woman.
Gal 4:30-41

We are not sons of the Old Covenant (Hagar, the slave woman), but of the New Covenant (Sarah, the free woman).

None of these facts can be changed with references in other places to dogmas and such. Yes, the dogma based on the Law was removed also. But that does not change the fact that the old Covenant, going back before the Law, all the way back to Abraham, was completed and replaced with the New Covenant in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Gal 4 does not talk about dogmas, or precepts or doctrines. It talks about the Covenant from God (again, not the ordinances of man), and how that Covenant was “driven out” in favor of a New Covenant. Hagar was not “renewed” into Sarah. No, Sarah is a completely different wife (Covenant) from Hagar. From Gal 3:15 all the way through to the end of Gal 4, God explains the purpose of the Law, and its place in the Old Covenant. And the fact that the Old Covenant was replaced, not with a renewal of the Old Covenant, but with a New Covenant. “But what does the Scripture say?
“Drive out the slave woman and her son,
For the son of the slave woman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.
So then, brothers and sisters, we are not children of a slave woman, but of the free woman.
Gal 4:30-41

We are not sons of the Old Covenant (Hagar, the slave woman), but of the New Covenant (Sarah, the free woman).

Allegories do not work that way. Elohim never told Abraham to make a covenant with Hagar: that was his own decision by the prompting of his wife, Sarah, and it was according to the mind of the flesh. Elohim then shows him how that was not what He meant. Again, it's a difference in interpretation and understanding of the very same Word which Elohim had spoken to Abraham. Read Gen 15 where the promise is given and then read immediately what follows in Gen 16:1-2.

None of these facts can be changed with references in other places to dogmas and such. Yes, the dogma based on the Law was removed also. But that does not change the fact that the old Covenant, going back before the Law, all the way back to Abraham, was completed and replaced with the New Covenant in Christ.

When you admit that, "Yes, the dogma based on the Law was removed also", you nullify your own dogma and prove yourself in error because you just got through using the Pharisaic interpretation and understanding to condemn me for not keeping your Pharisaic interpretation of the offerings and sacrifices in the Torah.

Moreover, if indeed you know and agree that the handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, and Scribes were nailed to the stake, then why are you still adhering to those interpretations of the Torah and using them here to condemn people who walk in the Torah according to the new Spirit of the supernal way taught by the Master in the Gospel accounts and by his apostles including Paul?

Ezekiel 11:19-21 KJV
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 36:24-27 KJV
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Just as I said: it is your interpretation and understanding of the Torah that was nailed to the stake. Get the truth from the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts and you will find out along the way that there is no reason for you to have a need for the Torah to be canceled. And also as I have said, even according to Paul, the goal is to understand the Torah, not to cancel it, and the veil over the heart, mind, and eyes when reading the Torah is only done away in Messiah because to be "in Messiah" is to be walking in his Testimony, and again, his Testimony is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Allegories do not work that way. Elohim never told Abraham to make a covenant with Hagar: that was his own decision by the prompting of his wife, Sarah, and it was according to the mind of the flesh. Elohim then shows him how that was not what He meant. Again, it's a difference in interpretation and understanding of the very same Word which Elohim had spoken to Abraham. Read Gen 15 where the promise is given and then read immediately what follows in Gen 16:1-2.
This is funny. You take the image that Scripture gives and turn it backwards. The people (Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and the children) are the shadow, the allegory, and the real things being spoken of are the two covenants of God. You cannot turn it around and make the lesson about the covenants fit the people who lived in the past.

Hagar represents the Old Covenant made with Abraham, and the Law that came from Mt Sinai. The children of Hagar are the children of slavery, because the Law from Mt Sinai was slavery. The children of Hagar today, those who cling to the Law and the Old Covenant, are not heirs of Heaven with Christ.
Sarah represents the New Covenant in Christ that is freedom. Her children are free in Christ, and heirs to the promise to Abraham with Christ.

When you admit that, "Yes, the dogma based on the Law was removed also", you nullify your own dogma and prove yourself in error because you just got through using the Pharisaic interpretation and understanding to condemn me for not keeping your Pharisaic interpretation of the offerings and sacrifices in the Torah.

Moreover, if indeed you know and agree that the handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, and Scribes were nailed to the stake, then why are you still adhering to those interpretations of the Torah and using them here to condemn people who walk in the Torah according to the new Spirit of the supernal way taught by the Master in the Gospel accounts and by his apostles including Paul?

Ezekiel 11:19-21 KJV
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 36:24-27 KJV
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Just as I said: it is your interpretation and understanding of the Torah that was nailed to the stake. Get the truth from the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts and you will find out along the way that there is no reason for you to have a need for the Torah to be canceled. And also as I have said, even according to Paul, the goal is to understand the Torah, not to cancel it, and the veil over the heart, mind, and eyes when reading the Torah is only done away in Messiah because to be "in Messiah" is to be walking in his Testimony, and again, his Testimony is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant.
When the Torah was removed, obviously the dogmas and ordinances of man based on the Torah were removed also. So me saying that the dogmas were removed ALSO does not in any way invalidate my point.

Yes, God put a new spirit and a new heart in those who believe in Christ (the New Covenant), not those who cling to the Old Covenant. I do not condemn you for keeping the Law. My human understanding (without Scripture) would probably say that at least you were doing something to try to seek God. But God sees it differently. As God says in Galatians 4, if, because it is part of the Law, you keep even one command from the Old Law the you are required to keep the whole Law for your righteousness. Christ is of no use to you because you are trying to earn your salvation through the Law. That is what Scripture says, not me.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
This is funny. You take the image that Scripture gives and turn it backwards. The people (Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and the children) are the shadow, the allegory, and the real things being spoken of are the two covenants of God. You cannot turn it around and make the lesson about the covenants fit the people who lived in the past.

Hagar represents the Old Covenant made with Abraham, and the Law that came from Mt Sinai. The children of Hagar are the children of slavery, because the Law from Mt Sinai was slavery. The children of Hagar today, those who cling to the Law and the Old Covenant, are not heirs of Heaven with Christ.
Sarah represents the New Covenant in Christ that is freedom. Her children are free in Christ, and heirs to the promise to Abraham with Christ.

So according to your interpretations the Father brought His people out of the bondage of slavery in Egypt to bring them into the bondage of slavery of laws and ordinances: and therefore also, according to your preaching, this was to fulfill the promises to the forefathers as He says all through the Torah. Everyone was enslaved, blind, and dead until your new gospel came along, yay for you! lol, have a great day.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,297
2,554
55
Northeast
✟238,743.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you are listening into such a conversation, and you already know the people you are listening to are either pescatarians or vegetarians, then you know they are not talking about red meat because you know they do not eat red meat.

Also, has anyone actually proven which understanding is the correct one in Mark 7:19? Or do you suppose most just think they get to pick whichever translation they prefer to incorporate in their doctrine?

Marl 7:19 KJV
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Mark 7:19 ASV
19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

I can understand how what goes out the draught is purged: but I sure would like to hear someone explain how food going out the draught is made clean through that process, (wait a minute, maybe I don't want to hear that after all, lol). Please note the portion in italics in the ASV version above: that means it is not in the Greek text but added by the translator to help you better understand (their interpretation of) the text. Notice also how the ASV changes the position of the question mark. This makes the final comment a statement and is why they get away with inserting the portion in italics. Generally I like the ASV but this is very bad form in this case.
I regret the long response time. My phone broke. I was able to get another one
(used on eBay for only $25 :D)
but it has its own set of issues. My current plan is to try to respond to all posts written to me, but there may be delays.

Pescatarians or vegetarians wouldn't be talking about red meat, but that logic they use could apply to red meat.

In this passage, I think Jesus is making a general statement, stuff going into your mouth doesn't make you unclean because it doesn't go into your heart.

So it's a general truth given in a specific context.

Kind of like if a "Ford guy" and a "Chevy guy" are talking, and one says that cars get the best gas mileage in high gear. They might be thinking of only Fords and Chevys. But that's a general truth that would apply to Volkswagens as well, even if they would never be caught dead in a VW bug :D
____________

A note about placing question marks,
As I understand it, the oldest manuscripts are all capital letters, no spaces or punctuation. Where to break up the sentences, where to put commas, periods, question marks... It's all translators choice. Sometimes there can be things in the contemporary Greek literature that influence their decisions, things not in the text.

Great discussion, peace be with you!
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟176,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I regret the long response time. My phone broke. I was able to get another one
(used on eBay for only $25 :D)
but it has its own set of issues. My current plan is to try to respond to all posts written to me, but there may be delays.

Pescatarians or vegetarians wouldn't be talking about red meat, but that logic they use could apply to red meat.

In this passage, I think Jesus is making a general statement, stuff going into your mouth doesn't make you unclean because it doesn't go into your heart.

So it's a general truth given in a specific context.

Kind of like if a "Ford guy" and a "Chevy guy" are talking, and one says that cars get the best gas mileage in high gear. They might be thinking of only Fords and Chevys. But that's a general truth that would apply to Volkswagens as well, even if they would never be caught dead in a VW bug :D
____________

A note about placing question marks,
As I understand it, the oldest manuscripts are all capital letters, no spaces or punctuation. Where to break up the sentences, where to put commas, periods, question marks... It's all translators choice. Sometimes there can be things in the contemporary Greek literature that influence their decisions, things not in the text.

Great discussion, peace be with you!

Glad you got another phone and made it back online. : )

Peter's remarks in the vision of Acts 10 show that he did not understand the Master that way in the Mark passage.

Acts 10:13-14 KJV
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Peter does not yet understand the supernal nature of the vision at this point: this shows that he responded according to the flesh in the vision, physical killing and eating the literal-physical flesh of literal-physical animals. And according to the statement, even at this time so long after the Mark passage in question, he had still never eaten anything considered common or unclean.

What does that tell us about the Mark 7:1-16 passage? Peter himself, who was there, did not understand that discourse to be saying what modern preachers like to say it says.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

Doug Brents

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2021
1,763
362
52
Atlanta, GA
✟13,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So according to your interpretations the Father brought His people out of the bondage of slavery in Egypt to bring them into the bondage of slavery of laws and ordinances: and therefore also, according to your preaching, this was to fulfill the promises to the forefathers as He says all through the Torah. Everyone was enslaved, blind, and dead until your new gospel came along, yay for you! lol, have a great day.
I am a slave today… to God and His righteousness (Rom 6:15-18).
“What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? Far from it! Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.

Again, this is not my doctrine, this is God’s words. Yes, God freed the nation of Israel from slavery to Egypt, and brought them into the Promised Land where they were slaves to sin under the Law, with the express purpose of setting the world free from sin through Christ.
 
Upvote 0