The new covenant ?

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand the generally accepted religious views of the land I was born into. But there is so much of this view that doesn't align itself with Scriptures. When I couple this observation with God's First example of deception, it make me "take heed". God introduced "another voice" into the Garden. A voice that used some of God's Word to convince Eve that God"s instruction makes her blind, and that God knew this. This same voice is alive and well in the world today. It is part of the Choice God has set before us HE speaks to in Duet. 30.

Gen. 3:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, (Transgress the Commandment (SIN) then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And from the beginning we are told to "rule over" this "other voice".

Gen. 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

So then according to these scriptures sin existed in the very beginning. Sin is transgression of God's Law. Where there is no Law, there is no sin. But God Himself said sin existed and it's desire is for us, and we are to rule over it. So then God's Law was here in the beginning as well. But no Covenant with Levi or Levitical Priesthood Law yet. That Law was not "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

The same thing about the serpent is written in another way in the NT.

1 Pet. 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, (rule over) knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (Abel, Noah, Abraham, and all men of Faith.)

So then, when it is written;

Gen. 18:For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

And again;

Gen. 26:4: And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

It becomes clear that the Covenant God made with Abraham included God's Commandments, Statutes, and Laws.
....

Your sinking back into ideas of justification by the law, which is not so. We are justified by Faith, not works, even as Abraham believed God and God counted it to Abraham as righteousness.

Rom 4:2-5
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.


3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.


5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him That justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

KJV
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your sinking back into ideas of justification by the law, which is not so. We are justified by Faith, not works, even as Abraham believed God and God counted it to Abraham as righteousness.

Rom 4:2-5
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.


3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.


5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him That justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

KJV

I appreciate the rebuke, I want to represent the Scriptures correctly.

It isn't my intention to "sink back" to the Levitical Priesthood for justification of sins. I reread my post over and over and I can not find where I suggested we go back to the "works of the LAW" God gave to the Levites for atonement.

May I ask you to please identify the parts of my post which you believe I suggested we return to the Old Priesthood for atonement of sins?

Thanks for your reply Davy and your brotherly concern. I look forward to your reply to my request.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
As a divided kingdom still? All Israel should include Judah shouldn't it?

Depends what you mean. Even in Yeshua's time, Judah and Benyamin were basically the only tribes. The rest, were in the diaspora. Then after 70 AD, many were killed and many sent to Rome as slaves. So speaking when the prophecy was given, no...future...yes! Today everything mixed...Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim, etc...
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Depends what you mean.
What I mean is it speaks of the two kingdoms there, not one. Unless one kingdom implied is a divided one. Or two houses, not one
Even in Yeshua's time, Judah and Benyamin were basically the only tribes. The rest, were in the diaspora. Then after 70 AD, many were killed and many sent to Rome as slaves.
This imo only brings in the notion of removing from tribe to tribe their inheritance.
So speaking when the prophecy was given, no...future...yes!
So, the prophesy was to two kingdoms or a divided kingdom?
I think two kingdoms more fitting as seen here
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
The restoration they sought to have was a kingdom to Israel. So Israel is distinct from the kingdom in this passage.
Hebrews I think is speaking of a kingdom of priests since the Levites had no share in the inheritance with Israel, the priesthood and tithe were their inheritance.. But the house of David Judah having the promise of Messiah in the throne of David.
Today everything mixed...Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim, etc...
Yeah a removal of the inheritance from tribe to tribe. None any longer keeping to their own inheritance of their fathers. Judah as a land mass inheritance was the only tribe to come back to its inheritance as recognized "Judean", or "Judea" by Rome. All the rest of the tribes inheritance were not recognized as anything other than Roman land.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
What I mean is it speaks of the two kingdoms there, not one. Unless one kingdom implied is a divided one. Or two houses, not one

This imo only brings in the notion of removing from tribe to tribe their inheritance.

So, the prophesy was to two kingdoms or a divided kingdom?
I think two kingdoms more fitting as seen here
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
The restoration they sought to have was a kingdom to Israel. So Israel is distinct from the kingdom in this passage.
Hebrews I think is speaking of a kingdom of priests since the Levites had no share in the inheritance with Israel, the priesthood and tithe were their inheritance.. But the house of David Judah having the promise of Messiah in the throne of David.

Yeah a removal of the inheritance from tribe to tribe. None any longer keeping to their own inheritance of their fathers. Judah as a land mass inheritance was the only tribe to come back to its inheritance as recognized "Judean", or "Judea" by Rome. All the rest of the tribes inheritance were not recognized as anything other than Roman land.

Well you also have the 12 judging the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28) and also James 1:1 and Revelation 21:12 showing Israel as the 12 tribes.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I appreciate the rebuke, I want to represent the Scriptures correctly.

It isn't my intention to "sink back" to the Levitical Priesthood for justification of sins. I reread my post over and over and I can not find where I suggested we go back to the "works of the LAW" God gave to the Levites for atonement.

May I ask you to please identify the parts of my post which you believe I suggested we return to the Old Priesthood for atonement of sins?

Thanks for your reply Davy and your brotherly concern. I look forward to your reply to my request.

I don't have time to go over everything in your post, but you began to try to prove that a law did exist prior to God giving the law through Moses, and I somewhat agreed. But then you began to sink, with statements like this...

Studyman:
It becomes clear that the Covenant God made with Abraham included God's Commandments, Statutes, and Laws.

Well, that's not true, as Apostle Paul showed in the Romans 4 Scripture I quoted to you.
The Promise by Faith which Abraham believed, is from Abraham believing God would accomplish what He said He would do. And that belief by Faith on God's Promise, God counted it to Abraham as righteousness. There was no... connection with the law in that.

And only AFTER Abraham had already believed God, did God give Abraham the token of circumcision. Apostle Paul made this distinction also about Abraham yet being in uncircumcision when he believed the Promise in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

The devil sinned from the beginning, that's what John showed us in 1 John 3:8. That means even before... the time of Adam and Eve in God's Garden. By the time Satan was the adversary in God's Garden as "that old serpent", sin had already been done by Satan which caused his fall. God ended that old world when Satan rebelled in coveting His Throne when it was his job to guard it (Ezek.28).

Since sin is defined by John as the transgression of the law, like you said, did that mean Satan was first to break God's laws? Yes. That is proof that God's laws existed already, but NOT the old covenant laws and things which Jesus nailed to His cross. I am not like many of my deceived brethren that believe Lord Jesus nailed all of God's laws to His cross. Obviously He didn't, as Paul showed in 1 Timothy 1.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Well you also have the 12 judging the 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28) and also James 1:1 and Revelation 21:12 showing Israel as the 12 tribes.
Yeah, and you also have Paul equally an apostle to the Gentiles.
So the prophecy concerning Israel was making the first covenant "old". If not to Israel the first covenant would not be made old. This gives no indication it is made with Jews or Israel "only". Rather it is indicative only of making the first covenant "old".
And what of Judah? Of this tribe nothing is said of Moses (Sinai covenant) concerning priests?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't have time to go over everything in your post, but you began to try to prove that a law did exist prior to God giving the law through Moses, and I somewhat agreed. But then you began to sink, with statements like this...

Studyman:

It becomes clear that the Covenant God made with Abraham included God's Commandments, Statutes, and Laws.


Well, that's not true, as Apostle Paul showed in the Romans 4 Scripture I quoted to you.


Well Davy, it may not be recognized by some religions in this land. But Abraham most certainly had God's Laws, Commandments, and Statutes. And his obedience in these Laws played a part in God's Promise to Abraham's children. At least according to the Scriptures.

Gen. 26:
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Paul doesn't say anything contrary to these Word's of the ONE and only God in Romans.

Rom. 4: 1:
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What did God tell Abraham that he believed?

Gen. 12:1
Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

And did Abraham believe God?

Yes, 4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him;

So Abraham believed God. But satan also believes God. what makes satan different from Abraham?

James 2:
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Now according to mainstream religious theology, Paul and James are contradicting one another here.

But when a person understands that when Paul is speaking about "works of the law" for forgiveness/justification, he isn't speaking about God's Judgments and Definition of Sin, rather, he is speaking about the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "Works" spelled out in the Covenant God made with the Levites exclusively for the forgiveness/atonement of sins, "til the Seed should come".

A "LAW" that was ADDED to God's Laws because of transgression of them, 430 years after Abraham was Blessed for obeying them.


4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

This aligns with Paul's teaching through out the scriptures.

Rom. 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7. To them who by patient continuance in well doing (Like Abraham) seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (Like Cain and the King of Sodom) indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, (disobey God) of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, (Obey God) to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.


"The Promise by Faith which Abraham believed, is from Abraham believing God would accomplish what He said He would do. And that belief by Faith on God's Promise, God counted it to Abraham as righteousness. There was no... connection with the law in that."

There is no connection to the Law God ADDED, 430 years after Abraham obeyed, to provide for the atonement of sins until Jesus came. But if a person "believes God" there is certainly a connection to God's Blessing on people who trust HIM enough to follow HIS instructions, and the curses on those who refuse to trust HIM and go their own way. It is a major tenant of the Gospel of Christ.

Rom. 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein (within the Gospel of Christ) is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Not by the sacrificial "works of the Law" the Jews were still pushing on the Gentiles.)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

So the religious doctrine which teaches Cain or the people of Sodom didn't know abut God's definition of sin, or HIS Judgments is simply not true if one believes the God of the Bible.

"And only AFTER Abraham had already believed God, did God give Abraham the token of circumcision. Apostle Paul made this distinction also about Abraham yet being in uncircumcision when he believed the Promise in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3."

Yes, the "new man" is who Abram became after he placed his trust in God. But had he not "Denied Himself" and "departed as the Lord had instructed him" he would have been no different than Cain or the King of Sodom.

"The devil sinned from the beginning, that's what John showed us in 1 John 3:8. That means even before... the time of Adam and Eve in God's Garden. By the time Satan was the adversary in God's Garden as "that old serpent", sin had already been done by Satan which caused his fall. God ended that old world when Satan rebelled in coveting His Throne when it was his job to guard it (Ezek.28)."

Not sure what you are saying here, or what it has to do with the two covenants.

"Since sin is defined by John as the transgression of the law, like you said, did that mean Satan was first to break God's laws? Yes. That is proof that God's laws existed already, but NOT the old covenant laws and things which Jesus nailed to His cross. I am not like many of my deceived brethren that believe Lord Jesus nailed all of God's laws to His cross. Obviously He didn't, as Paul showed in 1 Timothy 1."

Well I believe you are correct in teaching that Jesus didn't nail God's Judgments and definition of sin to the Cross.

But for sure, without any question, Jesus certainly nailed the Law which required that only a Levite could become a High Priest of God and only a Levite could provide for the forgiveness of sin by performing various "works of the Law". And there can be no question that this same Law didn't exist in Abraham's time, and that Abraham was justified "Apart from" the justification LAWS God gave Levi on Israels behalf, on mt. Sinai.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Your whole premise is faulty, and is not aligned with what Apostle Paul showed in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. God's law was NEVER involved in Abraham's Faith on the Promise God gave him and thus counted Abraham's Faith as righteousness. The existence of God's laws at that time is irrelevant to Abraham 'believing' God's Promise.

Therefore, I will NEVER agree that the law had anything to do with that Promise which Abraham believed, which is also what Apostle Paul taught, as I have already shown from Romans 4 and Galatians 3.
 
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

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, and you also have Paul equally an apostle to the Gentiles.
So the prophecy concerning Israel was making the first covenant "old". If not to Israel the first covenant would not be made old. This gives no indication it is made with Jews or Israel "only". Rather it is indicative only of making the first covenant "old".
And what of Judah? Of this tribe nothing is said of Moses (Sinai covenant) concerning priests?

It never has because gentiles could always enter into it by being "grafted in", joining the commonwealth of Israel. Could be ger toshav and then ger tzaddik. The Temple had a court of the gentiles.
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your whole premise is faulty, and is not aligned with what Apostle Paul showed in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. God's law was NEVER involved in Abraham's Faith on the Promise God gave him and thus counted Abraham's Faith as righteousness. The existence of God's laws at that time is irrelevant to Abraham 'believing' God's Promise.

Therefore, I will NEVER agree that the law had anything to do with that Promise which Abraham believed, which is also what Apostle Paul taught, as I have already shown from Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

There are many doctrines in the religions of this land. They are so many one can not count them. But there is only one Holy Scriptures and One God that inspired them. I don't buy into the religion which teaches that Paul taught against or differently than the God of the Bible.

Abraham had and obeyed God's Commandments, Statutes, and Laws. This can not be denied if God's Word is the source. God did tell Isaac he was Blessed because of Abraham's belief and obedience to HIS Commandments. I posted HIS very Words which clearly show this.

God told Cain the same thing. "If you do well, shall you not be accepted?"

Paul confirms this truth in the beginning of His preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Rom. 2:6
Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

And again;

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This aligns perfectly with the Word's of God to Isaac on Gen. 26 and also confirms Paul's declaration and belief of the Law and Prophets that the mainstream religion of his time called heresy.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

The main focus of my reply was to discuss what Paul was referring to when he said man was not "Justified" by "works of the Law"?

So what were the "Works" required by Law for the atonement of sins essential for justification? Should I not ask that question?

Did Moses say "If a man sins, he shall Love his Neighbor as him self", or "keep God's Sabbath Holy, and his sins will be forgiven? Were the Pharisees, the children of satan, teaching the new converts that before they can be saved they must first "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart"?

No Davy. If a man believes in the Word of God which became Flesh, he would know that God gave Aaron and the tribe of Levi a Priesthood specifically to provide for the atonement of sins, and justification, "til the seed should come". This Priesthood included various sacrificial "Works of the Law" (EX. Law of sin offering, Law of burnt offering, etc.) which were required before a man could become righteous, or have his sins forgiven. The Jews, who didn't believe Jesus was the Prophesied "SEED", were still promoting their version of these "Works of the Law" for atonement of sins.

Paul called this Law, "The Law of Works" in Rom. 3. Abraham was justified to be sure, but not by the "Law of Works" ADDED 430 years after he obeyed God's Commandments. He was justified by the "Law of Faith". The Pharisees had omitted these Laws from their religion, at least if a man believes in the Jesus of the Bible.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I know this isn't taught in the religions of the land, but if a man would look into it, they would see that what I have posted is true, at least according to the Scriptures.

Thanks for the reply. I know how difficult it is to address scriptures which may bring a religious belief into question.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It never has because gentiles could always enter into it by being "grafted in", joining the commonwealth of Israel. Could be ger toshav and then ger tzaddik. The Temple had a court of the gentiles.

Yes.

Ex. 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Lev. 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

And again;

Is. 56: Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

It was the corrupt religious leaders of the time which created a religion that relegated Gentiles as "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, without God and without hope in the world".

They created this Law that was against us, not the God of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
And what of Judah? Of this tribe nothing is said of Moses (Sinai covenant) concerning priests?

Not sure what you are asking. Moshe was a Levite as was Aaron. Yeshua was of Judah.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Judaism not only is not a false religion, it was Jesus' religion when He was in human form. Why do you think He spent so much time with His people, the Jews, and appointed twelve of them to be His disciples and apostles?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Wow,

Thanks for the spirit filled reply.

I don't agree that posting scriptures and posing questions about them is pushing a false religion. But you are free to believe as you wish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Sorry, but you are misinformed.

Judaism was a creation of the scribes and Pharisees which came out of the 70 years Babylon captivity. That is where the Babylonian Talmud originated. They changed usage to Aramaic and they treated the Talmud sage writings as their main tradition. That is why our Lord Jesus warned about their making void The Word of God by their traditions. So by your inferring that Jesus agreed with their teachings shows you have not understood what He taught hardly at all.

Did I say anything about Jesus agreeing with the Pharisees and Sadducees? They had taken historical Judaism created by the Torah given at Mount Sinai and perverted it for their own ends. "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him." There was nothing wrong with Judaism, but with the religious leaders.
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,147
623
65
Michigan
✟325,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Judaism not only is not a false religion, it was Jesus' religion when He was in human form. Why do you think He spent so much time with His people, the Jews, and appointed twelve of them to be His disciples and apostles?

There are two common definitions regarding the meaning of the man made term "Judaizer" in religions today, in my view.

One is the one you attribute to it, and I agree as well. This definition represents the walk of Jesus, as He said "Salvation is of the Jews". Zechariahs and Simeon were also "Judaizers" by this definition. This definition reflects the actual Judgments, Commandments and Statutes of the Word of God which became Flesh. Jesus qualified to pay my death penalty because HE humbled Himself to these instructions of God.

The other definition which is common as well, is that "Judaizm" was the false religion the Levite Priests and Pharisees were pushing on the people in Acts, Romans and Galatians. This religion was later called the Talmud. It was built around the Levitical Priesthood and placed emphasis on the Priesthood duties for justification and/or atonement of sins.

Matt. 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Matt. 15:7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not God)

Many, who come in Christ's Name, do not distinguish between the two definitions, but clump both together. I have actually heard preachers teach their flock that the Pharisees were trying to "earn" salvation by following God's Laws "to the letter". Of course this is untrue, yet it remains a doctrine furthered by most of the religions of the land.

I love how you brought Jesus and HIS Walk into the conversation regarding this man made term "Judaizm". It makes someone truly seeking think. If Jesus was a Judaizer, should we not also strive to walk as HE Walked? If "Judaizm" is a false religion, then this would explain how Zechariahs knew Jesus when HE came, but the High Priest, according to the "LAW", did not.

Great post pescador, good food for thought.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There are two common definitions regarding the meaning of the man made term "Judaizer" in religions today, in my view.

One is the one you attribute to it, and I agree as well. This definition represents the walk of Jesus, as He said "Salvation is of the Jews". Zechariahs and Simeon were also "Judaizers" by this definition. This definition reflects the actual Judgments, Commandments and Statutes of the Word of God which became Flesh. Jesus qualified to pay my death penalty because HE humbled Himself to these instructions of God.

The other definition which is common as well, is that "Judaizm" was the false religion the Levite Priests and Pharisees were pushing on the people in Acts, Romans and Galatians. This religion was later called the Talmud. It was built around the Levitical Priesthood and placed emphasis on the Priesthood duties for justification and/or atonement of sins.

Matt. 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Matt. 15:7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not God)

Many, who come in Christ's Name, do not distinguish between the two definitions, but clump both together. I have actually heard preachers teach their flock that the Pharisees were trying to "earn" salvation by following God's Laws "to the letter". Of course this is untrue, yet it remains a doctrine furthered by most of the religions of the land.

I love how you brought Jesus and HIS Walk into the conversation regarding this man made term "Judaizm". It makes someone truly seeking think. If Jesus was a Judaizer, should we not also strive to walk as HE Walked? If "Judaizm" is a false religion, then this would explain how Zechariahs knew Jesus when HE came, but the High Priest, according to the "LAW", did not.

Great post pescador, good food for thought.

Thanks, and the same to you. Your post is very enlightening.
 
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

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
It never has because gentiles could always enter into it by being "grafted in", joining the commonwealth of Israel. Could be ger toshav and then ger tzaddik. The Temple had a court of the gentiles.
It? I assume you are speaking of Israel? Where is the grafting? In all sincerity I only see circumcision as entry?
So many more issues here as commonwealth and grafting speaks to not just Romans but also Ephesians.
Israel as twelve tribes or Israel as a kingdom of priests?
1. Israel as a nation of twelve tribes which tribe of Levi has no inheritance with Israel.
2. Israel as a kingdom of priests. The Levites inheritance is the priesthood.
Which both Romans and Ephesians speak to IMO
In Romans, The tree is a "kingdom of priests"., Ephesians speaks of the household of God of which the priests alone entered into. The other tribes were strangers (estranged) there. But the Sons of Aaron indeed appear before God as a representative agent of the twelve tribes. As he bore their names upon the breastplate of Judgement as well. The high priest did not stand as a representative agent for the nations. Hence circumcision of the flesh, having tribal affiliation thereby, became represented in the highpriest's ministration.
All in Christ share access by the holy spirit.
All as in Both Jew and Gentile.
This is the pivotal point Of the priestly entry into the very house of God itself...
Both Jew and Gentile in their person could not go. But in Christ both could enter boldly.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
So, Revelation records the inheritance. Of which Levi is participating as an heir.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0