- Dec 28, 2011
- 1,560
- 276
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So you don't accept what Luke says in Heb 8:13?
I don't accept the interpretation many put on the words of the unknown author of Hebrews 8:13.
Upvote
0
So you don't accept what Luke says in Heb 8:13?
None of us can agree, or debate, your interpetation because of this rule:
No anti-Torah theology. No posts accusing or debating that Messianic Jews or Gentiles are under the law, or re-erecting the wall of partition, or that Torah has been made null and void, or done away with.
and whether Luke wrote it or not is debatable.
I'm not sure I'd agree with putting the discussion of Hebrews 8:13 under this rule. Hebrews is even more foundational than that doctrine. By that rule, it seems like any discussion whatsoever of Hebrews must be ruled out.
I actually have the book on Lukan authorship. I'm looking forward to reading it.
I'm not debating anything anti-torah and I am definitely not saying anyone IS under the law. I am saying the opposite. There is no wall, and no one is under the written law.
Of course Luke is another issue, but feel free to read this review and book;
Lukan Authorship of Hebrews - TGC Reviews
We are told by Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Everything was accomplished when Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to His Father. He was the first born of the dead.
Jesus ushered in the NEW covenant. You can't have two covenants at the same time. Jer 31:31-34 shows God telling His people through the prophet Jeremiah, that He would make a NEW covenant with His people. That NEW covenant was brought by Jesus and made official when He rose from the dead. At that point the OLD covenant became obsolete and disappeared then the temple was destroyed in 70AD. Heb 8:13
Contrary to your opinion, I am not denying the light, but receiving the light of God's Word and our Messiah.
My quote of the rule was in two parts - not just the one you mention. It is not permitted to say that the Law is done away with - or to debate it, as I see it.
Anyway, I'm taking a sabbatical from posting (see the EP thread).
No, obviously if all you were doing is looking for a way out of your errors. What I don't understand is why you won't accept what Luke states very clearly in Heb 8:13?
Maybe others can enlighten me?
You are trying to link two as if they all apply to the same thing. That is not proper exegesis.
The two Olive Trees/Lampstands in Rev 11:4 are Elijah and Enoch who are the two witnesses for Jesus. They die in Revelation, which makes Heb 9:27 fully true.
Where are you in this New Covenant given to Judah and Ephraim?
Are you of Judah or Ephraim?
Can you show us the contract on the New covenant and how it differs from the old?
We have Paul going out of his way to prove to all people that he continued keeping the law, and the liars who claimed Paul and the disciples taught Jews not to keep the law were proven liars.
So we have to take in this knowledge of what Paul and the disciples actually did, and what they did was to continue keeping the law and even sacrificing.
Now we can see the Temple destroyed and the sacrificial system no longer being in play.
We can see that many things in the law can no longer be followed, but this only after the destruction of the Temple.
So at what point does the word of God come to nil and void?
It certainly didn't pass away in Paul's day, and Paul proving that he kept the laws of Moses decades after Jesus died is him living by example.
If such liars brought about the deaths and persecution of the disciples by telling a lie that the disciples taught people not to keep the Torah, at what point do we become like the liars and tell people not to keep the laws of Moses?
Do you see what I mean?
If Paul put on such a big show as to prove to all that he WAS NOT teaching people to abandon the law, and such a big deal made out of the liars saying that this new religion taught people not to keep the law, than at what point do we contradict what Paul actually did, to agree with the liars?
Where are you in this New Covenant given to Judah and Ephraim?
Are you of Judah or Ephraim? Can you show us the contract on the New covenant and how it differs from the old?
We have Paul going out of his way to prove to all people that he continued keeping the law, and the liars who claimed Paul and the disciples taught Jews not to keep the law were proven liars.
So we have to take in this knowledge of what Paul and the disciples actually did, and what they did was to continue keeping the law and even sacrificing.
Now we can see the Temple destroyed and the sacrificial system no longer being in play.
We can see that many things in the law can no longer be followed, but this only after the destruction of the Temple.
So at what point does the word of God come to nil and void?
It certainly didn't pass away in Paul's day, and Paul proving that he kept the laws of Moses decades after Jesus died is him living by example.
If such liars brought about the deaths and persecution of the disciples by telling a lie that the disciples taught people not to keep the Torah, at what point do we become like the liars and tell people not to keep the laws of Moses?
Do you see what I mean?
If Paul put on such a big show as to prove to all that he WAS NOT teaching people to abandon the law, and such a big deal made out of the liars saying that this new religion taught people not to keep the law, than at what point do we contradict what Paul actually did, to agree with the liars?
Keeping Torah and its validity is to be taken for granted, no discussion. This is a basic thing, a foundation upon which the real questions and issues are based.
Keeping Torah and its validity is to be taken for granted, no discussion. This is a basic thing, a foundation upon which the real questions and issues are based.
Let's try not to confuse the validity of the Torah with the applicability of the old covenant Mosaic and Levitical written laws.
The NEW covenant is given to all as Paul teaches. 2 Corinthians 3:6; He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenantnot of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Luke teaches in Heb 8:6-8; in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people
A Biblical covenant is NOT a contract, it is an undertaking that God renders based on compliance by the partakers. We don't make deals with God, He tells us what He will do, if we follow His rules. Sadly instead of believing and having faith in Him, the ancient Jews apparently needed better incentive than loving and obeying God.
Actually that is NOT factual. I suggest you read Acts 22:1-21
Paul was always trying to teach that we were no longer under the written law, but under grace. He clearly explains in Romans 2, what the issues are.
It was obsolete when Luke wrote Heb 8, and actually disappeared within 30 years. That would have been within 5 -10 years of Paul's day. You should read Acts 21:17-26 and how Paul tried to compromise and appease the Jewish believers and what happened to him. God does not want compromise, He wants obedience.
Paul wasn't teaching people to not keep the Torah, he was teaching people how they should live in their heart and spirit as Romans 2:17-29. He then goes on to teach about the law of faith, which is the NEW covenant. You assume that all the things theses people were saying about Paul were lies, but even James confirmed they were true but didn't want to challenge the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and coherced Paul to go along with his plan. Paul himself said that ALL scripture is God breathed, so obviously that meant thee Torah of His day.
How would you propose to differentiate them? Vayikra/Leviticus is the very heart of the Torah... literally!
There is no Torah apart from the Sinai covenant, and no Sinai covenant apart from the Torah. What you are proposing strikes Messianics as a decidedly oxymoronic statement.