Establish The Law

[daq]

It says we have been rendered usless, idle FROM the Torah not by. The Greek word Apo denotes separation or origin from which the subject has been separated from. Not cause, which the word "by" implies. Couple that with the fact that Nomos (Law) in Romans 7:6 is in the Genitive case solidifies the point.

And no matter what these are facts.

A nonsensical response. Which is addressed in the context to Romans itself.

Facts? The Torah is the cause and Paul makes this abundantly clear because it is according to the scripture. The soul that sins shall die, and that's even included in the Jeremiah 31 "new covenant" passage.

Jeremiah 31:29-31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

And this is a companion passage which contains the same proverb:

Ezekiel 18:1-3 KJV
1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

This proverb concerns a more ancient version of the original sin doctrine: no more original sin doctrine, it is forbidden. No more blaming your sins on Adam, it is forbidden. The soul that sins shall die. The soul represents the body in these passages, and sin dwells in the flesh, Romans 7:18.

Therefore Paul says that with the mind he serves the Torah of Elohim, but with the flesh (he serves) the Torah-Instruction of sin, Romans 7:25. Have we not been over all of these things in the thread I linked to previously? Yes, we have, and you chose not to believe the words of Paul.

The Torah-Instruction of sin and death teaches one to put to death the deeds and works of the body: this is taught by the Master himself in the Gospel accounts if one truly understands when he speaks of these things.

Romans 8:4-13 KJV
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Again, the Spirit here is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant foretold in Ezekiel the Prophet, which is the Testimony of the Meshiah in the Gospel accounts and even the Spirit of Grace, just as he says, his words are Spirit, and they are Life. Where does the Master speak of these things which Paul is expounding in the above passage?

Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-50.

And these passage references above are taught in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The one who walks according the flesh cannot see them, for the letter kills and he cannot see or perceive the Logos, and the natural mind neither comprehends the Testimony of the Meshiah nor the writings of Paul, and cannot please Elohim because it cannot be subject to the Torah, which is spiritual, (Romans 7:14a). If a man use the law lawfully, he puts to death the deeds and works of the body: and with the mind he serves the Torah of Elohim, but with the flesh he serves the Torah-Instruction concerning sin. In like manner Paul says that he subdues his body into subjection, submission, (1 Cor 9:27).

 

[Gary K]

Read Reply #152. The discussion did not pertain to the Shabbat. Clare73 had referenced 2 Cor 3:6, claiming that it says that the letter is the law itself, and I quoted the passage and responded that it does not say what she claimed it says. HIM then quoted my response to her, and said, "Yes it does", in support of Clare73's errant statement. Therefore HIM and Clare73 agree that 2 Cor 3:6 teaches that the whole Torah is the letter, while, again, Stephen says the Torah contains Living Oracles. The Living Oracles of Elohim are not the letter but the Logos within the rhema sayings of the Torah written with the letter. This distinction is absolutely critical and necessary to understand so that one does not end up in the ditch for tossing out the whole Torah full of the Living Oracles of Elohim.

I agree qith HIM on almost everything and disagree with Clare73 on almost everything. So I think you're misreading the fact that they agree on something.

I agree onthe text in question with HIM. I also have found that Clare73 agrees with me sometimes but for opposing reasons. That's why I believer you're iminterpreting their agreement on a single text.

 

[daq]

I agree qith HIM on almost everything and disagree with Clare73 on almost everything. So I think you're misreading the fact that they agree on something.

I agree onthe text in question with HIM. I also have found that Clare73 agrees with me sometimes but for opposing reasons. That's why I believer you're iminterpreting their agreement on a single text.

I only spoke of a single text and subject for which you now also confess that you agree with them.

Where you got the idea that I think HIM and Clare73 have the same overall doctrine is the problem.
That is just something you apparently have assumed at my expense.

Nice chatting, but I see no reason to continue this off-topic discussion with you.

 

[Gary K]

I only spoke of a single text and subject for which you now also confess that you agree with them.

Where you got the idea that I think HIM and Clare73 have the same overall doctrine is the problem.
That is just something you apparently have assumed at my expense.

Nice chatting, but I see no reason to continue this off-topic discussion with you.

Wow. Where did I say anything similar to what you're alleging?

 

[daq]

Wow. Where did I say anything similar to what you're alleging?

You said it here:

HIM is well capable of answering for himself, but your answer to HIM above really caught my attention.

Why would you even begin to lump HIM and Clare73 together? Their beliefs on the Sabbath differ greatly.

Moreover this is what I actually said:

Because the Testimony of the Master compels me to speak the truth if I am going to speak of it at all. Why do you treat the N/T writings as a lawyer so heavily bound to the letter which both you and Clare73 have confess kills?

Have I not myself confessed the same thing? Yes, I have, and again, yes, the letter kills.
Am I now lumping myself with Clare73 and HIM by confessing this truth? No.
Thus it is you who has misunderstood.

 

[Clare73]

That's a change and renewal of the heart by way of the Testimony of the Meshiah which is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant.

There is no "renewed" covenant either in the OT (Jer 31:31) or the NT.
Jesus said it is "the new" covenant. (Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25), as did Paul (2 Co 3:6, Heb 8:13).

They broke the old Mosaic covenant, (Jer 31:32) which was temporarily added (Gal 3:19) to the Abrahamic covenant of grace (Ge 15:6), and it has been made obsolete (Heb 8:13), being replaced (Heb 8:7) with the "new" covenant of grace promised in Jer 31:33-34.

 

[Gary K]

You said it here:



Moreover this is what I actually said:



Have I not myself confessed the same thing? Yes, I have, and again, yes, the letter kills.
Am I now lumping myself with Clare73 and HIM by confessing this truth? No.
Thus it is you who has misunderstood.

Jesus' life proves the letter does not kill. He loved others as no other human ever has. He kept the letter of the law. That proves the letter and the spirit of the law are not incompatible but one and the same thing.

Did I just reverse myself? Yes. I just realized I had said something I do not believe to be true.

 

[daq]

Jesus' life proves the letter does not kill. He loved others as no other human ever has. He kept the letter of the law. That proves the letter and the spirit of the law are not incompatible but one and the same thing.

Did I just reverse myself? Yes. I just realized I had said something I do not believe to be true.

He knew the letter without having been taught by any of the schools of the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Likewise he says that anyone who seeks to do the will of the Father will understand the doctrine. Moreover he says that the doctrine is not his own but His who sent him, (the Father).

John 7:14-17 KJV
14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Or, better said, imo:

John 7:14-17 HNV
14 But when it was now the midst of the feast, Yeshua went up into the temple and taught.
15 The Judeans therefore marveled, saying, "How does this man know letters, having never been educated?"
16 Yeshua therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.
17 If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.

 

[daq]

There is no "renewed" covenant either in the OT (Jer 31:31) or the NT.
Jesus said it is "the new" covenant. (Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25), as did Paul (2 Co 3:6, Heb 8:13).

They broke the old Mosaic covenant, (Jer 31:32) which was temporarily added (Gal 3:19) to the Abrahamic covenant of grace (Ge 15:6), and it has been made obsolete (Heb 8:13), being replaced (Heb 8:7) with the "new" covenant promised in Jer 31:33-34.

Same old argument: hear the parable of the wine-skins, and believe the Testimony and the Logos within that rhema-saying which is written in your Bible using letters.

 

[Gary K]

He knew the letter without having been taught by any of the schools of the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Likewise he says that anyone who seeks to do the will of the Father will understand the doctrine. Moreover he says that the doctrine is not his own but His who sent him, (the Father).

John 7:14-17 KJV
14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Or, better said, imo:

John 7:14-17 HNV
14 But when it was now the midst of the feast, Yeshua went up into the temple and taught.
15 The Judeans therefore marveled, saying, "How does this man know letters, having never been educated?"
16 Yeshua therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.
17 If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.

Yes He did. He trusted His father because He knew him so well. In my opinion Paul is speaking to the Talmud as he was a Pharisee and the Talmud was their religion. It's why they killed Jesus and persecuted His followers. That's why he could say that as to the letter of the law he was not guilty.

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

 

[daq]

Yes He did. He trusted His father because He knew him so well. In my opinion Paul is speaking to the Talmud as he was a Pharisee and the Talmud was their religion. It's why they killed Jesus and persecuted His followers. That's why he could say that as to the letter of the law he was not guilty.

Very good point, imo, (except that the Talmud would have been oral tradition at that time). Notice in the passage I quoted that they say, How does this one know letters? and yet how does he respond? He responds concerning doctrine, "the doctrine", which is not even his own. If "the letter" has to do with doctrine then it surely has to do with interpretation. Therefore it is erroneous to say, as others have said, that what Paul means by "the letter" is the whole written Torah. The Apostolic writings are also written with and in letters. We thus have letters in the form of epistles and letters in the form of the characters of an alphabet, and in Greek the same word can be used for both, G1121 γραμμα, (though often the Greek word for epistle, επιστολη, is used for a written letter).

 

[Gary K]

Very good point, imo, (except that the Talmud would have been oral tradition at that time). Notice in the passage I quoted that they say, How does this one know letters? and yet how does he respond? He responds concerning doctrine, "the doctrine", which is not even his own. If "the letter" has to do with doctrine then it surely has to do with interpretation. Therefore it is erroneous to say, as others have said, that what Paul means by "the letter" is the whole written Torah. The Apostolic writings are also written with and in letters. We thus have letters in the form of epistles and letters in the form of the characters of an alphabet, and in Greek the same word can be used for both, G1121 γραμμα, (though often the Greek word for epistle, επιστολη, is used for a written letter).

So? What;s that have to do with Paul being a Pharisee and a strict follower of of Pharisaical law before his conversion? Nothing. It explains his words in a way that nothing else can explain. As a Messianic you should well know about the Talmud and what is found it it.

Of course that Pharisees would say that about Jesus. He contradicted and condemned the traditions of the Pharisees so he obviously wasn't educated by them. If He had been he would have been like Paul before his conversion.

 

[Clare73]

Same old argument: hear the parable of the wine-skins, and believe the Testimony and the Logos within that rhema-saying which is written in your Bible using letters.

And in that testimony and the logos within that rhema, the wineskins are not renewed, they are new.

 

[daq]

And in that testimony and the logos within that rhema, the wineskins are not renewed, they are new.

Every wine-skin formerly belonged to a living creature, (typically a goat). The skin had to be taken to a tanner to be cleansed, treated, refreshed, (kainos), renewed, (kainos), and repurposed before it could be filled with neos-new wine. Neos-new wine is fresh squeezed or pressed and cannot be renewed: neos is brand new, kainos is new in the sense of fresh, refreshed, renewed, etc., etc, and every version of the wine-skins parable or saying juxtaposes these two words in the same manner.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.

Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

H2320 חֹדֶשׁ chodesh (cho'-desh) n-m.
1. the new moon.
2. (by implication) a month.
[from H2318]
KJV: month(-ly), new moon.
Root(s): H2318

These are all the same word, חדש, in the original Ashuri text from the time of Ezra.
The Masoretes and James Strong created the above divisions.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 T/R
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A-W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

By the usage of the words neos and kainos in the parable of the wine-skins the Master himself expounds the meanings of these words to those willing to hear, understand, see, and perceive.

Luke 5:37-39 T/R
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο νεος οινος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται
39 και ουδεις πιων παλαιον ευθεως θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστοτερος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 N/A-W/H
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον
39 ουδεις πιων παλαιον θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστος εστιν

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.

The wine-skin is the heart, which obviously must be renewed: the Kohen keeps the skin of the offering, and he takes it to Simon the Tanner, who turns the skin into what the Kohen desires it to be, whether it will be used for parchments, or a wine-skin, or whatever. And as I said, the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and must be cleansed, refreshed, (kainos) renewed, (kainos), and repurposed.

 

[daq]

So? What;s that have to do with Paul being a Pharisee and a strict follower of of Pharisaical law before his conversion? Nothing. It explains his words in a way that nothing else can explain. As a Messianic you should well know about the Talmud and what is found it it.

Of course that Pharisees would say that about Jesus. He contradicted and condemned the traditions of the Pharisees so he obviously wasn't educated by them. If He had been he would have been like Paul before his conversion.

Sorry, but I cannot make any sense of your comments: Paul having been a Pharisee has nothing to do with when the Talmud was written down.

 

[Gary K]

Sorry, but I cannot make any sense of your comments: Paul having been a Pharisee has nothing to do with when the Talmud was written down.

What does the date the Talmud was written down have to do with anything? It was written down about 200 years after Christ's life.

 

[daq]

What does the date the Talmud was written down have to do with anything? It was written down about 200 years after Christ's life.

I give up then: I have no clue what you are talking about in reply #172.

 

[Gary K]

I give up then: I have no clue what you are talking about in reply #172.

If you say so.

 

[HIM]

I only spoke of a single text and subject for which you now also confess that you agree with them.

Where you got the idea that I think HIM and Clare73 have the same overall doctrine is the problem.
That is just something you apparently have assumed at my expense.

Nice chatting, but I see no reason to continue this off-topic discussion with you.

Not much time today, I think the issue here is we are never wrong. Am I correct?

Will address other posts as God and time avails,

 

[Clare73]

Every wine-skin formerly belonged to a living creature, (typically a goat). The skin had to be taken to a tanner to be cleansed, treated, refreshed, (kainos), renewed, (kainos), and repurposed before it could be filled with neos-new wine. Neos-new wine is fresh squeezed or pressed and cannot be renewed: neos is brand new, kainos is new in the sense of fresh, refreshed, renewed, etc., etc, and every version of the wine-skins parable or saying juxtaposes these two words in the same manner.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.

Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

H2320 חֹדֶשׁ chodesh (cho'-desh) n-m.
1. the new moon.
2. (by implication) a month.
[from H2318]
KJV: month(-ly), new moon.
Root(s): H2318

These are all the same word, חדש, in the original Ashuri text from the time of Ezra.
The Masoretes and James Strong created the above divisions.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 T/R
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A-W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

By the usage of the words neos and kainos in the parable of the wine-skins the Master himself expounds the meanings of these words to those willing to hear, understand, see, and perceive.

Luke 5:37-39 T/R
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο νεος οινος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται
39 και ουδεις πιων παλαιον ευθεως θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστοτερος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 N/A-W/H
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον
39 ουδεις πιων παλαιον θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστος εστιν

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.

The wine-skin is the heart, which obviously must be renewed: the Kohen keeps the skin of the offering, and he takes it to Simon the Tanner, who turns the skin into what the Kohen desires it to be, whether it will be used for parchments, or a wine-skin, or whatever. And as I said, the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and must be cleansed, refreshed, (kainos) renewed, (kainos), and repurposed.

View attachment 334681 View attachment 334682

New (kainos--that which is unaccustomed or unused, new as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old) covenant (Lk 22:20) is a covenant of a new form, a new quality, a new nature.

Different nature , new quality is not "renewal," it is "new."
The new covenant being of a different nature and quality than is the old covenant makes it "new," not a "renewal" of the old Mosaic covenant they had before.
How do you call the new covenant of grace a renewal of the old covenant of law?

Your eschatology is driving your erroneous NT hermeneutic.