Yahushua, Yahusha or Jesus?
- Thread starter LivingRightInWrongWorld
- Start date
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
The the conclusion that Paul drew about Jesus being our Passover Lamb is therefore that we should keep Passover, but you've interpreted an allusion to the bread referring to Jesus, and therefore that somehow means we shouldn't keep Passover in a way that you can't explain, so I'm baffled as to why you are the one accuse me of doing Scriptural gymnastics. The word "context" does not allow you change the meaning of the text to fit your position.
The idea that keeping the Law is about trying to become justified by perfect obedience is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Law. It makes it out to be that what God primarily wants from us is a perfect performance, whereas the reality is that since the beginning with God walking with Adam in the Garden, He has always been primarily concerned with having a relationship with us, with His commands being instructions for how to grow in that relationship. So I keep the Law according to what it means in the Bible, but I am not keeping the law according your misunderstanding of it. There are many verses that speak about keeping the Law and no verses that speak about the impossibility of doing so. For example:
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
So again, keeping God's commandments is not about trying to become justified, but about growing in a relationship with Him based on love and faith. However, if it is impossible to keep His commandments, then it is impossible to love God, but this verse does not act like that is the case, but rather it says that His commandments are not burdensome. This is again in agreement with what God said in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which you keep refusing to address.
I again completely agree that it says that we are not under the law, but Paul spoke about multiple different types of law, so it is important to figure out which one he was speaking about us not being under. For example, in Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with a law of sin that held him captive and caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which he served with his flesh. Paul also said that God's Law was not sin, but that it was holy, righteous, and good, and that the law that we are not under is one where sin had dominion over us, so the law that we are not under does not at all fit his description of God's Law, but perfectly fits his description of the law of sin.
I have never suggested anything like that, but rather the goal of obedience to the Law is a relationship with Christ for righteousness for everyone who has faith. The Law points us towards Christ because everything in it is there to teach us about him and how to grow in a relationship with him based on faith and love, and because he is the one who can free us from our Lawlessness.
My goal is to keep God's Law perfectly because I love God and and have faith in Him to teach me how to walk in His ways, but I am not yet able to keep the Law perfectly, so when I stumble, then I repent and turn back to obedience. As I explain, the command not to mar the corners of our beards describes a very different action than shaving, so there is no need to repent for shaving.
This verse does not say that it is those who do the things which are written in the Book of the Law who are under a curse, but those who do not. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, it says that obedience to the Law brings life and a blessing, while disobedience to the Law brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it is presented as a choice, not as an impossibility, especially as God just said in verse 11 that it was not too difficult for us to obey. Again, it not those who try to keep the Law who are under a curse, but rather it is not who do not try to keep it who are under a curse, and Jesus came to free us from the curse of living in disobedience to the Law (Titus 2:11-14). There are no verses that say anything like that God an unloving Father who gave Law in order to put His children under a curse, but many verses that speak about God giving the Law for our own good to be blessing, so I have faith in God that this is true. Can you really not see absurdity of your position that God looks with favor upon those who disobey His command and curses those who seek to obey them, especially when all throughout the Bible God wanted His children to repent and return to obedience to His commands?
In Romans 3:27, Paul spoke about law that was of works and a law that was of faith, and in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law, so the Book of the Law is of faith, while man-made works of law are straightforwardly of works, and by relying on works of the Law instead of relying on God's commands, they are failing to live by faith and therefore failing to do everything in the Book of the Law, which means that they are under a curse. Again, this error stems for you not bothering to distinguish between which law is being talked about. Living by faith is always associated with a willingness to submit to God's will as made known through His commands, such as with every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11, so our faith upholds God's Law (Romans 3:31), but you do not trust God enough to submit to His Law.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
According to 2 Peter 3:15-17, Paul is difficult to understand, but those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of Lawlessness, so we can be confident that Paul did not teach Lawlessness and that any interpretation of him doing so is twisting his words.
Again, it is important to determine which was being talked about. God said that what He commanded was not too difficult, so unless they thought that God lied, then they were clearly not speaking about the Mosaic Law. The confusion stems from the fact that their understanding of the Mosaic Law is very different from your understanding of it. In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded them by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He then went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), and they worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so Jesus criticized the Pharisees for not following the Mosaic Law and for teaching their own traditions in place of it. We can see evidence of this in Acts 15:1, where they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. God never required all Gentiles to become circumcised, and while He did required all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to do so in order to become saved, so they were twisting what God required into a man-made requirement, which they nevertheless considered to be the Law of Moses, and you have taken was only against a man-made requirement as being against obeying what God commanded.
The Law was given to reveal sin, not for the purpose of fixing it, but if you agree that we should not do what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should seek to live in accordance with the Law.
Again, the Law was never given for the purpose of inheriting the promise.
The Law brings wrath upon those who do not follow it, not those who do. It makes no sense to interpret this as God reserving His wrath for those who seek to obey His commands.
Paul said in Romans 7:7, that the Law is not sin, so clearly Romans 5:20 is not speaking about God's Law, but rather this perfectly fits Paul's description of the law of sin, which stirs up the works of the flesh in order to bear fruit for death.
Again, the law we are not under is described as one where sin had dominion over us, which hindered Paul from doing the good that he wanted to do, so this should not be interpreted as us no longer being under the Law that Paul wanted to obey, but as no longer being under the law of sin that was hindering him from obeying God's Law. This also fits with the context of Romans 6:12-19.
It really does not make any sense to interpret us as being freed from God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to follow God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him. Paul specified that the law that we have been delivered from is one that held us captive and in Romans 7:23, it is the law of sin that Paul described as holding him captive.
Indeed, the Law was given to instruct us how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, not for the purpose of making us holy, righteous, and good, so if you believe that we should do what is holy, righteous, and good, as we are commanded to in the NT, then you should believe that we should obey the Law.
Paul said that the Law is good and that he did not blame what was good for bringing him death to him, so neither should you. (Romans 7:13).
Again, speaking about the law of sin, not the Law that instructs us not to sin.
The Law was weakened by sinful flesh, so Jesus gave himself to free us from sin so that we could be free to obey it and thereby meet is righteous requirement (Romans 8:2-3).
Again, this fits perfectly with Paul's description of the law of sin, but does not at all fit with his description of the God's holy, righteous, and good Law.
The Bible is up front that the law is a ministry of life and blessing for obedience and a ministry of death and a curse for disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:15-20), so the fact that the Law brings death for disobedience is hardly a good reason for you to choose to disobey it. We are now under a New Covenant with more glory, but we are still under the same God with the same ways, and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in His ways.
God's law was never give for the purpose of justifying anyone, so it is that much more true for man-made works of law.
Again, it doesn't make any sense to interpret this as needing to die to God's instructions for how live for Him in order that we might live for God, but rather we need to die to the law that was hindering us from obeying those instructions.
Again, the Law was never given for the purpose of become righteous, so it is your misunderstanding of the Law that frustrates grace.
We should not seek to be justified by man-made works of law when we have already been justified by faith.
It is not about the need for perfection, but about the need to continue to practice repentance when we fail to be perfect.
Man-made works of law are not of faith, but Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law, so God's Law is of faith, and obedience to His commands is straightforwardly about having faith in Him to teach us how to rightly live. Living by faith is always associated with living in obedience to God's commands, while there are a number of verses that describe disobedience to God's commands as breaking faith.
In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so he freed us from the curse of living in disobedience to the Law. God is not an unloving Father who gave the Law to curse His children, but rather He said it was given for our own good to teach us how to walk in His ways, and I believe Him.
God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so therefore His instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are likewise eternal (Psalms 119:160), so the only way for those instructions to be temporary is if God's righteousness is temporary. John came with the message to repent from our sins, not the message that the Law is temporary so we no longer need to repent.
Again, the Law was not given for the purpose of saving us, so it doesn't follow that the Law therefore doesn't work.
Having no more need for a tutor is not at all the same as having no more need for what they taught you. Disregarding everything they taught after they left would be completely missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that Christ has come, we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in accordance with the example of obedience to the Law that he set for us to follow. In addition, we now have the Spirit, who has the role of leading us in obedience to God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
You are mixing up which covenant he was speaking about.
It wouldn't make any sense to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works and then say a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works. Rather, this is referring to man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28, which were acting as barriers between Jews and Gentiles.
The goal of the Law is a relationship with Christ for everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4), so obedience to the Law without being focused on growing in a relationship with Christ is completely missing the whole point, which is why Paul considered that to be rubbish.
To use an analogy, speed limits are not needed for the people who would otherwise normally drive at safe speeds, but for those who would otherwise drive at unsafe speeds. So the Law was not made for the people who were already living in accordance with what it requires, but for those who were not. This means that you if you living in obedience to the Law, then you are counted among the people that the Law was made for.
Again, that Law was never given to make anything perfect in the first place.
It says that God found fault with the first covenant, however, it does not say that the fault was with His righteous standard, but rather it says that He found fault with the people for breaking their covenant. It says that it was enacted on better promises with a superior mediator, but it does not say that the New Covenant is enacted on superior laws because that would involve following a superior God with superior instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness.
This does not say that the Mosaic Law is obsolete, but that the Mosaic Covenant is. There existed a way to act in accordance with God righteousness long before God made the Mosaic Covenant, so God's righteousness is not dependant on that covenant. There is much evidence of many of God's laws already being in place before they were given at Sinai, so the Mosaic Covenant did not change they way to do what is righteous, but rather it revealed what has always been and will always be the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, so it is not speaking about God's righteousness becoming obsolete.
Indeed, the law is an important foreshadow of what is to come.
Upvote
0
DreamerOfTheHeart
I Am What I Am
- Jul 11, 2017
- 1,162
- 392
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You can say anything, depends on what you mean.
As you speak english as your first language, I don't see a reason to use a name from another language.
Intention is what matters.
But, without the Holy Spirit, one does not know Jesus, so can not say His Name.
Only by the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Jesus can one say the Name.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Just referring to this one sentence,
Look at Jose - in S.America he is called Jose. If he moves to Europe, he is called Jose. If he moves to Alaske, he is called Jose. If he moves to China, he is called Jose. If he moves to the USA, he is called Jose. If he moves to Russia, he is called Jose. If he moves to Africa, he is called Jose.
I guess if he moves in to one of the churches, they might call him Bill ?!
Upvote
0
Paul is perfectly clear in Galatians 5:2-4: "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."
In other words, Christ will not save those who follow Old Testament rituals.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
By "follow", do you mean trust for salvation ?
Or simply, DO, because it is good and right to DO ? (trusting YHWH for Salvation).
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
As stated, my point in quoting that verse was to show that we can be confident that Paul did not teach Lawlessness and that any interpretation of him doing so is twisting his words, not to insult, though when you find that Scripture insults people for holding your position, then you might want to reconsider holding your position.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Your rephrase is incorrect. God's had many purposes for giving His Law, but it was never given for the purpose of providing a means of becoming saved, so it does not follow that because we shouldn't obey God's Law for a purpose for which it was never given that therefore we shouldn't obey it for the purposes for which it was given. And if we can't become justified by obeying God's Law, then it is that much more true for man-made works of law. God shows His grace to us by teaching us to obey His Law (Psalms 119:29), so they had fallen from grace because they were relying on their own works instead of on God.
According to Isaiah 45:25, all Israel will be saved, so a number of Jews mistakenly thought that this meant that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes in order to become saved, which involved circumcision, and which involved joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything Moses had said (Exodus 20:19). Moses had the authority to judge according to Scripture, but he delegated this authority on Jethro's advice (Exodus 18), and by the first century those who had this authority passed down to them were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat, and their case law or works of law had become a large body of supplementary oral laws and traditions, which Jesus referred to as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:2-4). He certainly was not criticize the Pharisees for teaching the people to obey what God had commanded them. So by becoming circumcised, a Gentile was becoming a Jewish proselyte and agreeing to live as a Jew according to all of their oral laws, and doing all that in order to become saved, and this was the whole law that they were agreeing to obey that Paul was speaking against, not against obeying the commands of the God that we serve.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
2Timothy2:15
Well-Known Member
You just don't get it and that is obvious. It is you who needs to do some studying. Start with reading the bible for yourself and put away who ever you are listening to. My comment has nothing to do with honest discussion of scripture but your attitude.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
I have nothing against you personally and have shown any sort of negative attitude towards you. I have only disagreed with your interpretation of Scripture and explained why I think you are wrong. I have studied the Bible for myself, which is why I changed to my current position. You asked how those verse could be reconciled and then you were dismissive of my reply, so if you want to have an honest discussion of Scripture, then let's do that. If you think that there is something that I don't get, then please explain it to me.
Upvote
0
Yeshua HaDerekh
Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
- May 9, 2013
- 11,459
- 3,771
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
That is true ONLY if you follow it as a means to salvation...and without Yeshua. He says "every man who accepts circumcision"...so if an ADULT gentile enters the Jewish faith through circumcision and adheres to the Law as a means of salvation, they have fallen away from the grace provided through Yeshua. Jewish male children are circumcised at 8 days of age, not normally as adults. Yeshua, all the apostles as well as Paul himself were circumcised and followed the Law...
Upvote
0
I was quoting the actual Bible (ESV translation). Here is the NIV, if you prefer:
"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
Here "circumcision" obviously includes all the other Jewish rituals.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paul says quite clearly that, for those who follow the path of circumcision, there is no salvation through Jesus. None at all.
Upvote
0
Yeshua HaDerekh
Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
- May 9, 2013
- 11,459
- 3,771
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
So you are saying Jews cant be saved through Yeshua...you obviously did not read what I wrote.
Upvote
0
Yeshua HaDerekh
Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
- May 9, 2013
- 11,459
- 3,771
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Men are NOT circumcised unless they are not Jewish and are converting to Judaism. So he is telling GENTILES not to get circumcised and the belief that converting to Judaism will bring salvation.
Upvote
0
Yeshua HaDerekh
Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
- May 9, 2013
- 11,459
- 3,771
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
You need to read it in context...
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." "Ye were running well; who hindered you that ye should not obey the truth?"
It is quite obvious here, Paul is asking who told them this.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 12, 2014
- 7,218
- 5,563
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Iesous is simply a transliteration of Yeshua... first used by Jews in 300BC when they took that name into Greek and rendered it Iesous. It isn't perfect, but it is the best one can do using Greek letters. But we still lose the "sh" sound and even are only mimicking the "y" sound... but it is close. Retaining the Y was easy when first going into English because the J first had a "y" sound and retained that until the early 1800's. But... we have what we have and God seeks a pure heart not perfect linguistic skills. He will to the pure heart and lousy pronunciation far more quickly than He would to an impure heart and perfect pronunciation. The point... it is about the heart not the tongue (not in this case, anyway).
Actually, Paul stated he never preached against the Torah... but this isn't the thread for that. I would make the point, in that eventual thread, that Ephesians and Galatians are misunderstood. But, again... that is another thread.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
