The Torah is not abrogated

Deuteronomy 10:12-22 ... circumcise your heart ... vs 16

Romans 2:17-29 ... circumcise your heart... vs 29

I posted these a couple of days ago, hoping they might provoke discussion. In both cases the law is upheld but, crucially, for us, circumcision of the heart is not an alternative form of circumcision - it is essential for Jew and Gentile, in order to be in a right relationship with G_d, inwardly.

GodsGrace101 said:

I've often said that the bible was written by Jews to Jews and we have changed many meanings since about the 1800,s.
Different thread...

Click to expand...

Very true, but the changes go back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
And yes - a topic for another thread.

Dave-W said:

Very true, but the changes go back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
And yes - a topic for another thread.

Click to expand...

I'd like to discuss this. I'm very interested in the early theologians, pre the 4th century.
Will start a thread when I have time,,,will cue you in.

Heber Book List said:

Deuteronomy 10:12-22 ... circumcise your heart ... vs 16

Romans 2:17-29 ... circumcise your heart... vs 29

I posted these a couple of days ago, hoping they might provoke discussion. In both cases the law is upheld but, crucially, for us, circumcision of the heart is not an alternative form of circumcision - it is essential for Jew and Gentile, to be in a right relationship with G_d, inwardly.

Click to expand...

I read this but feel I cannot reply in this thread.
I'll just say that I believe Paul is saying the opposite of what you're saying.
But, I repeat,
Romans 14:22-23
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

We must follow our conscience, if it has been trained by God.

GodsGrace101 said:

We must follow our conscience, if it has been trained by God.

Click to expand...

As has been said, "Most of what we believe about the Bible we have learned from others" How do you determine if your conscience is trained by man's religious theology or by God via the Holy Spirit.

AbbaLove said:

As has been said, "Most of what we believe about the Bible we have learned from others" How do you determine if your conscience is trained by man's religious theology or by God via the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

How do we know anything?
I know for sure I don't care for calvinism, but they'll point to scripture and tell me I'm wrong.

As far as conscience...we really cannot depend on our conscience UNLESS it is trained.

How do we train it?
We start with the 10 commandments.
We sensitize kids to what is wrong and what is right.
We teach them that God is a holy God and demands our best behavior.

This takes a long time. A lot of Sunday school.
Even adults don't understand that our conscience is not, by itself, a good guide. Some don't even have a conscience! It's called being asocial.

That's about how. Call it religion, call it the bible, call it the Holy Spirit, but it must be done.

GodsGrace101 said:

I read this but feel I cannot reply in this thread.
I'll just say that I believe Paul is saying the opposite of what you're saying.
But, I repeat,
Romans 14:22-23
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

We must follow our conscience, if it has been trained by God.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your need to remain within the SOP, but it does allow you to ask questions, and questions, carefully constructed, can be as good as any other post!

Re your response - please read the start to Romans Ch. 3, where Paul is clear that being circumcised (and therefore in favour of the law), and the end of that Chapter where Paulagains affirms the Law.

So, are you saying Paul is telling lies in either Ch. 2 or Ch. 3?

That's not a fair question ... "So, are you saying Paul is telling lies ..." How would you react if a MJ friend would pose a question to you saying, "So, are you saying Paul is telling lies ..." ? Perhaps, there is a better approach, but you knew a debate with a quest is not allowed ... so why bait her?

Let's face it there are more than a few Messianic Jews who think Paul's letters are his own commentary because certain passages come across as opposing their Messianic Judaism beliefs. In others words they think Paul is deceived so it affects there whole perception of the NT.

Your question is baiting her into a debate which is not the most tactful approach. After all not even Messianic Jews are in complete agreement on how best to interpret certain passages in Paul's letters. Even so for one Messianic Jew to reply to another Messianic Jew ... "So are you saying Paul is telling lies in either Ch. 2 or Ch. 3" is not the most tactful approach. What if the other Messianic Jew beats you to the punch and says that the Ruach HaKodesh is my teacher. So, then are you going to proceed to tell your Jewish friend in so many words that he is deceived?

Open Heart said:

I completely agree, and it is good that you brought it up as a reminder. I think it goes without saying though that MJ's understand that circumcision of the heart doesn't abrogate circumcision of the body.

Click to expand...

But many Christians refer to it as the direct equivalent of / replaces bodily circumcision - it isn't. It is probably a form of Replacement Theology, in fact.

It makes Acts 2:37 more easily understood, though!

Open Heart said:

I think it would be too contentious for this forum. Too many divergent views, and I suspect that the stakes are too high. We range from those who reject the early church altogether as apostate to me, a Catholic who thinks a lot of the traditional teachings of that era are on par with scripture. Can you imagine the sparks that would fly? (I could not present my views, but I would poke holes in other views.)

Click to expand...

I'd never put it on this forum.
I'm considering General Theology - the study of God. Who could know more than the Early Church Fathers?
I'll cue you in...

Open Heart said:

Although there is wiggle room, I think it is more specific than that. We can't say, "Well, fornication is by and large a sin, but in my particular case it is okay."

Click to expand...

LOL
I DID say --- as long as we don't break any commandments!!

Perhaps the reason Paul is considered by some Messianic Jews as a traitor to Messianic Judaism is due in large measure to the following passages in Paul's letters (especially Romans 2:25-27) ...


As a Jew himself and a Pharisee should it perplex a Messianic Jew that Paul would even dare to make such a statement as Romans 2:27...

Paul is apparently speaking/writing to Jewish brethren about non-Jewish Believers that keep the Law without being physically circumcised. Is it because of Paul's severe persecution and punishment by Jews (2 Corinthians 11:24) that he has overreacted? Is Romans 2:27 more than Messianic Judaism can bear? When Paul says, keeps the Law is he referring to just the Ten Commandments which are inclusive of ... "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27).

GodsGrace101 said:

How is one to keep the ceremonial laws if there is no longer any sacrifice needed?

How do we keep civil laws if we are not living in the Israel of 2,000 years ago?

IOW, I'm not saying you shouldn't live your conviction. God forbid! I do wonder though, HOW you could do this??

Just curious.

Click to expand...

We keep those which apply today and look
forward to when the rest will be reinstated.