10 commandments done away

[muffler dragon]

Hi Muffler, thanks for your post.

Why do you believe Colossians is dealing with something other than Torah?

In Christ,

Daniel

One of the first reasons, Daniel, is because of the extreme amount of reverence that Sha'ul, Y'shua and any other Jew would have for the Torah.

As one studies the Gospels, it's easier to explain things through Jewish eyes. Y'shua never condemned the Pharisees for their observance of Torah; instead, it was their man-made additions that caused issues (parts of the Oral Torah or Halacha). The same was adopted by Sha'ul. The other groups that would come into play would be sects such as Sadducees and Essenes. The Essenes were 'extremely' legalistic. The amount of 'hand-written' restrictions that they placed were immense. BUT, the bigger problem with what the Essenes would say is that they placed salvation and standing with G-d in contingency with these man-made doctrines: "Follow or your are fallen!"

The Law or Torah was never a means of salvation; it was a guide. Do you see the difference? This is where the statement: the spirit versus the letter of the Law comes into play. The Torah is Holy and Good. It is meant as a guide (that is the spirit of the Law); whereas others believe that somehow the Torah gives you salvation (the letter).

Hopefully, I've made sense instead of rambling.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Which is why you need to rightly divide the word of truth

Dear AV:

That's a crack shot that is most unfortunate to be coming from you. It's arrogant and, IMO, wrong.

If we evaluate the aramaic and greek background to the words in this statement by Y'shua, one might find that it has to do with Y'shua placing the Torah upon a firmer foundation (not ending it).

Furthermore, that would be contrary to His very nature. As I have stated before (and while some may disagree, no one has refuted), the "Word" in John 1:1 is taken from Memra in Aramaic and Logos in Greek. The two coincide to show that Y'shua was the embodiment of the Torah. Therefore, he did not end it, but instead, gave a clearer picture and understanding.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Hi Father Rick, thanks for your post.

It's important to remember the rest of what He said: "...until all is accomplished." When Christ died on the cross and said "it is finished", He accomplished all...the temple veil was torn in two, signalling the end of an old era and the beginning of a new.

BTW, I am not a dispensationalist.

In Christ,

Daniel

Dear Daniel:

I don't agree with this assertion either.

"Until all is accomplished" does not mean simply the crucifixion.

My understanding is this: the L-rd has said,
Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the (22) Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, (23) until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Thus, the Law will not end until the complete will of G-d is completed. Not just the crucifixion. This further adds credence to the position that Y'shua came to 'reNew' the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel as seen in Jeremiah 31. There is no discussion of Torah ending there.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

'Lo again, Muffler!

There are many different meanings of the word "Torah", even to the Jew. It can mean the first five books of the Bible. It can mean the actual laws contained in those first five books of the Bible. It sometimes is applied to the whole of the Tanakh. It often includes (for Rabbinic/Talmudic Jews) the oral Torah. The basic meaning of the word is "instruction." I would concede, though, that in Scripture it generally refers to the Torah of Moses.

I, too, know acknowledge and understand what you are saying. However, the way you presented it before, it was as though completely other things were considered Torah. With what you have stated above, do you really see any reason why they cannot be inter-changeable; they're all talking about the same thing?

I think you have a good point here. However, if this is the case, why does the writer of Hebrews refer to Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 & 10? And if we are not under the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, then where is the New Covenant of Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24 described? Do you believe it was prophesied in the Tanakh or not?

One thing I need to tell you, as I don't know if I have yet: I believe that all of the "New" Testament can be confirmed in the Tanakh. Therefore, all that is stated in the "New" Testament must have a basis in the Tanakh to be valid. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was prophesied. The problem is what is your understanding of the "New" covenant versus mine. As I have stated, the "New" covenant is actually a renewing of the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel (this is also the Mosaic). Thus, the work of Y'shua on the cross has opened the opportunity for the Jews to fulfill their calling before G-d. I believe the passages in Hebrews, Matthew and Jeremiah are all talking about the exact same thing.

I agree; obedience to Torah never saved. A living faith was the only thing that ever saved, then and now. (Rom 4:1ff).

I hope my clarification before was not in vain then.

Maybe Abraham was given the law, maybe not. But he did works that were considered capital offenses under the Mosaic code (marrying his sister, for example). How could God say that Abraham obeyed His torah (Gen 26:5), if that torah was identical with the Mosaic code, when he broke it in such a serious way?

That's something I would have to look into to be honest. If you would like my opinion: I don't know that I agree that the entire Torah was given unto Abraham orally by G-d. I don't know if I disagree yet either. I have not studied enough to come to a firm understanding. However, one thing that we would have to do (if we are given the time) is understand what was going on in the cultures surrounding the Israelites that G-d brought these conditions regarding marriage. That is one part of the context that may very well unleash the power of the story. Regarding the union between Abraham and Sarah, we don't know if he would have been required to intermarry within his family in order to have some sort of 'cleanliness' from the pagan nations around him. There is just a lot more to consider to the story than saying that he would have broken the Torah. Do you understand what I am saying?

Ok, then what do you think Paul was calling a "ministry of death" that was "engraved on stones?:

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. " (2 Corinthians 3:1-11, NASB95)
[1]
[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Some key things I see as I look at my online Bible:

The covenant which Sha'ul references in verse six is cross-referenced with Jeremiah 31, which we know has nothing to do with the gentile.

My contention in all of this is the situation where Sha'ul is addressing the same thing that Y'shua did. You might note in one of my other posts, the discussion about Halacha, regulations by the Essenes, and so on. The ministry of death in essence would be those adding man-made doctrines onto the Torah in order to procure their place in power, their so-called righteousness or separation from others...

I don't believe and can't believe that Sha'ul would ever use such words to describe the Torah.

Do you know what the root problem is to understanding some of the writings of Sha'ul? Not that there is an inherent problem with the words themselves or a limiting on the Godliness of them. It's a matter that we are only hearing one side of the conversation. And most times, I think we don't address what the other side is asking or talking about.

These people in all the letters of Sha'ul were primarily Jews (as Sha'ul) always went to the synagogues to teach and discuss. With that being the case, and the varying sects that would come through. I imagine that a great deal of Sha'ul's writings are in direct opposition to some form of Halacha and not the Written Torah itself.

I would not presume to say what God should or shouldn't change about His instructions to us. However, "everlasting" in Hebrew does not mean exactly what it means in English. I would highly recommend reading the article at the following link. It is quite lengthy, but I believe the author makes some excellent points on this very subject: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html

And thank you for your gracious apology; I, too often get quite heated in these discussions. Forgiven and forgotten.

In Christ,

Daniel

And I'm not looking to get into semantics about everlasting, but we have to look at history and what we have in front of our eyes. The Jews are still alive, they have a portion of their land and so on. Without G-d, the Jews would no longer be, there would be no salvation, there would be no understanding, and the promises of G-d would be void. That may sound nihilistic, but I find it to be true. If the Jews are ever wiped out, then G-d would be a liar.

I'll try to get to your link in the near future.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Hi again, Muffler!

I agree that Jeremiah 31 is a New Covenant between Israel and God, and gentiles are not mentioned. I also believe that the people of God is one. The Church is Israel under a New Covenant, in which gentiles may join. Sadly, most Jews are broken off from this one people of God, but they will be re-grafted in one day. (See Rom 11 for more details.) Thus, I disagree with dispensationalists who believe that there are two people of God--Israel and the Church--and I disagree with 'replacement theology', which teaches that Israel is utterly rejected in favor of a gentile Church.

In Christ,

Daniel

Dear Daniel:

One thing I wanted to point out: foreigners/gentiles/whatevers were always given the same opportunity even in the Tanakh.

Isaiah 56:
Isaiah 56


Rewards for Obedience to God

1
Thus says the LORD,
"(1) Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My (2) salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2
"How (3) blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who (4) takes hold of it;
Who (5) keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil."
3
Let not the (6) foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely separate me from His people."
Nor let the (7) eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the LORD,
"To the eunuchs who (8) keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And (9) hold fast My covenant,
5
To them I will give in My (10) house and within My (11) walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting (12) name which (13) will not be cut off.
6
"Also the (14) foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,
To be His servants, every one who (15) keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7
Even (16) those I will bring to My (17) holy mountain
And (18) make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on (19) My altar;
For (20) My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."

Just another reason why I see the "reNEWed" Covenant between Israel and G-d only.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Wow! m.d.
I've never heard that before! Can you explain this further with some scriptures please. I have always had a different view....(but am open to figure the real and only truth)

I have always believed that the Laws are now written on the hearts of believers (of truth).

Here I go, with 'another' indepth study of 'another' subject....

with thanks from Bon

It was more a matter of my own opinion.

How would one prove it pro- or anti- what I have stated? I don't think it can be.

What I am looking at is the inference. If the Scriptures are written on our hearts, then what would we have to study? It would be inherent in our nature.

Let me know what you had originally thought, you may very well be the one who can teach in this regard.

m.d.

 

[DanielRB]

One of the first reasons, Daniel, is because of the extreme amount of reverence that Sha'ul, Y'shua and any other Jew would have for the Torah.

As one studies the Gospels, it's easier to explain things through Jewish eyes. Y'shua never condemned the Pharisees for their observance of Torah; instead, it was their man-made additions that caused issues (parts of the Oral Torah or Halacha). The same was adopted by Sha'ul. The other groups that would come into play would be sects such as Sadducees and Essenes. The Essenes were 'extremely' legalistic. The amount of 'hand-written' restrictions that they placed were immense. BUT, the bigger problem with what the Essenes would say is that they placed salvation and standing with G-d in contingency with these man-made doctrines: "Follow or your are fallen!"

The Law or Torah was never a means of salvation; it was a guide. Do you see the difference? This is where the statement: the spirit versus the letter of the Law comes into play. The Torah is Holy and Good. It is meant as a guide (that is the spirit of the Law); whereas others believe that somehow the Torah gives you salvation (the letter).

Hopefully, I've made sense instead of rambling.

m.d.

Hi Muffler, thanks for your post.

I definately see a difference between the Mosaic torah being a guide and not a means of salvation, if by "salvation" we mean eternal life. Indeed, when the Mosaic torah was given, there were no promises of eternal life attached with it--only earthly life. The whole idea of heaven as a place of eternal bliss for the righteous is only hinted at in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. I never have disputed this.

The question, however, is if the torah of Moses should be a guide to our lives under our life in Christ. In other words, do we need to keep as much of the Mosaic torah as possible in this present age?

If you don't believe that Paul was talking about the Mosaic code in Colossians 2, what exactly do you believe he's discussing? You hinted that it might be something akin to the teachings of the Essenes or Sadducees (the Sadducees, however, seemed far less legalistic--in terms of adherence to traditions of men--than the Pharisees.) Keep in mind what Paul discussed in Colossians 2:

*Circumcision in Christ is made without hands, vs. circumcision made with hands (vv11-13)
*No one was to judge someone on matters of food or drink, festivals, new moons or sabbaths (v 16)
*Food and drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths are shadows, Christ is the substance (v17)
*We are not to subject ourselves to regulations of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" (vv 20-23)

These matters--circumcision, food and drink, festivals, new moons, sabbaths, things not to touch, taste or handle--are matters of Mosaic regulation. Yes, non-Mosaic sources also speak of those things. But Paul didn't say "forget the man-made additions to the torah of Moses; just hold fast to the torah of Moses." Rather, he spoke in such an inclusive way as to include both man-made traditions and the code of Moses.

So I ask you: if those who follow Jesus are to obey the torah of Moses (again, I recognize that this is not necessarily for salvation), does that include all of torah? Should all Christians:
*Be circumcised?
*Follow the sabbath?
*Obey kosher food laws?
*Not wear clothing of mixed fabrics?
*Require and eye for an eye, and not allowing pity to avoid this? (Deut 19:21)
*Never allow an Ammonite or Moabite to enter into the congregation? (Deut 23:3)
*Require a man to marry his brother's widow? (Deut 25:5ff)
*Cut off the hand of a woman who grabs a man's genitals in a fight? (Deut 25:11ff)

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not trying to say "Look how silly these laws are--surely you don't believe we should follow them!". God forbid! I totally believe that at one time God did require these things, and if they seem silly or foolish to us, then it is our problem, not God's. No, I am honestly asking: do you believe that we should try to follow all of Moses' teachings? And if not all, then how do we decide what to throw out and what to keep?

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[DanielRB]

Hi again, Muffler!

I, too, know acknowledge and understand what you are saying. However, the way you presented it before, it was as though completely other things were considered Torah. With what you have stated above, do you really see any reason why they cannot be inter-changeable; they're all talking about the same thing?

Let me steal a quote from the link I had provided:

First, from the Rabbinic scholar Solomon Schecter:



"It must first be stated that the term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means a teaching or an instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition in which Torah and Mizwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be found in the Rabbinic literature, implies already that the former means something more than merely the Law (e.g b. Ber 31a; b. Makk 23a; m. Abot 3.11). Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. (Solomon Schecter in [ART, p.117f])



"To the great majority of the Rabbis who retained their sober sense, and cared more about what God requires of us to be than about knowing what he is, the Torah was simply the manifestation of God's will, revealed to us for our good; the pedagogue, as the Rabbis expressed it, who educates God's creatures." [ART, p.135f]

Torah is, therefore, just God's instruction. It certainly includes the Mosaic teaching, but it does not exclude everything else. To be obedient to Torah means to be obedient to God's teachings as a whole, and not just adherence to certain passages in the Pentateuch.

One thing I need to tell you, as I don't know if I have yet: I believe that all of the "New" Testament can be confirmed in the Tanakh. Therefore, all that is stated in the "New" Testament must have a basis in the Tanakh to be valid. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was prophesied. The problem is what is your understanding of the "New" covenant versus mine. As I have stated, the "New" covenant is actually a renewing of the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel (this is also the Mosaic). Thus, the work of Y'shua on the cross has opened the opportunity for the Jews to fulfill their calling before G-d. I believe the passages in Hebrews, Matthew and Jeremiah are all talking about the exact same thing.

Could you please further elaborate on this? Earlier you stated that you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect yet, since it doesn't appear as though we have the Torah of God written on our hearts. Is there an "already/not yet" dimension with the new covenant? If so, then I don't believe our views are that different.

I hope my clarification before was not in vain then.

No clarification was needed. I understood all along that you were not suggesting that obedience to the torah of Moses was necessary for salvation.

That's something I would have to look into to be honest. If you would like my opinion: I don't know that I agree that the entire Torah was given unto Abraham orally by G-d. I don't know if I disagree yet either. I have not studied enough to come to a firm understanding. However, one thing that we would have to do (if we are given the time) is understand what was going on in the cultures surrounding the Israelites that G-d brought these conditions regarding marriage. That is one part of the context that may very well unleash the power of the story. Regarding the union between Abraham and Sarah, we don't know if he would have been required to intermarry within his family in order to have some sort of 'cleanliness' from the pagan nations around him. There is just a lot more to consider to the story than saying that he would have broken the Torah. Do you understand what I am saying?

I appreciate your openess and honesty on this, Muffler. But consider the implications of the tentative solution that you propose: if a principle can 'trump' another principle of torah (as Jesus suggested in John 7:22ff), then perhaps we need to think of how that might affect our obedience to torah today.

Some key things I see as I look at my online Bible:

The covenant which Sha'ul references in verse six is cross-referenced with Jeremiah 31, which we know has nothing to do with the gentile.

I agree, as I stated before, that Jeremiah 31 is a new covenant with Israel and not with some gentile entity. I do not believe that God made a seperate covenant with a gentile Church.

My contention in all of this is the situation where Sha'ul is addressing the same thing that Y'shua did. You might note in one of my other posts, the discussion about Halacha, regulations by the Essenes, and so on. The ministry of death in essence would be those adding man-made doctrines onto the Torah in order to procure their place in power, their so-called righteousness or separation from others...

Re-read 2 Corinthians 3:1-11. First, what was called "the ministry of death" was engraven on stones (v 7). Does this apply to man-made traditions? Second, it was given through Moses (again, v 7). Can it be said that man-made traditions were given through Moses?

I don't believe and can't believe that Sha'ul would ever use such words to describe the Torah.

Well...Muffler, all I can say is please try to understand the plainest meaning of the text, even if it (for now) might suggest a contradiction with what you understand about the Mosaic torah. I know sometimes in my Bible study I run across things that challenge my ideas and what I understand about other Scriptures. I haven't reconciled them all. But I honestly can't see how you can apply 2 Corinthians 3's description of a "minstry of death" to anything but the Mosaic code. I am, of course, open to another interpretation that fits the context, but so far I haven't seen one yet.

Now, one thing is that some translations use something other than "ministry of death". Perhaps that can shed light on the issue.

Do you know what the root problem is to understanding some of the writings of Sha'ul? Not that there is an inherent problem with the words themselves or a limiting on the Godliness of them. It's a matter that we are only hearing one side of the conversation. And most times, I think we don't address what the other side is asking or talking about.

I totally agree; wouldn't it have been nice to have a copy of the other side of correspondence with Paul?

These people in all the letters of Sha'ul were primarily Jews (as Sha'ul) always went to the synagogues to teach and discuss. With that being the case, and the varying sects that would come through. I imagine that a great deal of Sha'ul's writings are in direct opposition to some form of Halacha and not the Written Torah itself.

Sometimes the Churches had a large number of Jews, other times they had many gentiles. It depends on the Church.

And I'm not looking to get into semantics about everlasting, but we have to look at history and what we have in front of our eyes. The Jews are still alive, they have a portion of their land and so on. Without G-d, the Jews would no longer be, there would be no salvation, there would be no understanding, and the promises of G-d would be void. That may sound nihilistic, but I find it to be true. If the Jews are ever wiped out, then G-d would be a liar.

I have never challenged God's plan with the Jews. I firmly believe that, as Paul wrote in Romans 11:26, "all Israel shall be saved." God is not through with Israel-of-the-flesh, even if the majority of Paul's fellow countrymen are in a state of unbelief in their Messiah.

I'll try to get to your link in the near future.

m.d.

Thanks, Muffler. I would highly recommend many of the other articles on that website as well.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[muffler dragon]

Hi Muffler, thanks for your post.

I definately see a difference between the Mosaic torah being a guide and not a means of salvation, if by "salvation" we mean eternal life. Indeed, when the Mosaic torah was given, there were no promises of eternal life attached with it--only earthly life. The whole idea of heaven as a place of eternal bliss for the righteous is only hinted at in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. I never have disputed this.

The question, however, is if the torah of Moses should be a guide to our lives under our life in Christ. In other words, do we need to keep as much of the Mosaic torah as possible in this present age?

Good question. The thing is: there are a number of mitzvah that cannot be kept: regarding the Temple, the priesthood, and so forth. The process I am going through is this: starting with a Kosher diet (because I believe it is healthy for you), I am working on honoring the Sabbath, and then I'll go to the next thing that G-d brings to the table. It's a matter of day-by-day living and revelation. I don't have to swallow the whole thing in one day.

If you don't believe that Paul was talking about the Mosaic code in Colossians 2, what exactly do you believe he's discussing? You hinted that it might be something akin to the teachings of the Essenes or Sadducees (the Sadducees, however, seemed far less legalistic--in terms of adherence to traditions of men--than the Pharisees.) Keep in mind what Paul discussed in Colossians 2:

You are correct between the Sadducees and Pharisees. The Pharisees accepted Halacha (Oral Torah) whereas the Sadducees did not. I was just saying that I am sure there are different areas within each sect that probably had their own 'additions'.

*Circumcision in Christ is made without hands, vs. circumcision made with hands (vv11-13)
*No one was to judge someone on matters of food or drink, festivals, new moons or sabbaths (v 16)
*Food and drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths are shadows, Christ is the substance (v17)
*We are not to subject ourselves to regulations of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" (vv 20-23)

These matters--circumcision, food and drink, festivals, new moons, sabbaths, things not to touch, taste or handle--are matters of Mosaic regulation. Yes, non-Mosaic sources also speak of those things. But Paul didn't say "forget the man-made additions to the torah of Moses; just hold fast to the torah of Moses." Rather, he spoke in such an inclusive way as to include both man-made traditions and the code of Moses.

One thing that I have learned about is that Sha'ul often spoke (as Y'shua did) about how great the symbolism of certain things were, but the line is crossed when people attribute salvation to them. Do you see the difference? It's one thing to perform an act; it's another to think it gives you exclusivity. That is the majority of what Sha'ul is addressing: the idea that it gives you something that others don't have. The statement "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" comes explicitly from his dealings with the Essenes. They were very much the way I have described.

So I ask you: if those who follow Jesus are to obey the torah of Moses (again, I recognize that this is not necessarily for salvation), does that include all of torah? Should all Christians:
*Be circumcised?
*Follow the sabbath?
*Obey kosher food laws?
*Not wear clothing of mixed fabrics?
*Require and eye for an eye, and not allowing pity to avoid this? (Deut 19:21)
*Never allow an Ammonite or Moabite to enter into the congregation? (Deut 23:3)
*Require a man to marry his brother's widow? (Deut 25:5ff)
*Cut off the hand of a woman who grabs a man's genitals in a fight? (Deut 25:11ff)

It is a matter of conviction and path revelation by G-d. I don't know if I have mentioned this here, but there are three different considerations of the Jew to the Gentile: first, there is the Noachide, then the G-d-fearer, then the convert. The G-d-fearer just takes his walk further into the Torah. The convert obviously accepts and tries to fulfill all of Torah to completion. Will G-d call me to convert to Judaism in time? I do not know. If He does, I will. But as I stated above, I simply trying to move in a very personal relationship with G-d. And that is another thing that Christians don't realize about Judaism. It is a very personal and familial relationship. The emphasis is on the person and family, not the congregation.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not trying to say "Look how silly these laws are--surely you don't believe we should follow them!". God forbid! I totally believe that at one time God did require these things, and if they seem silly or foolish to us, then it is our problem, not God's. No, I am honestly asking: do you believe that we should try to follow all of Moses' teachings? And if not all, then how do we decide what to throw out and what to keep?

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

Daniel

I don't see any sarcasm or reproach in anything you have written. You have treated me with the utmost respect and I appreciate that greatly. I hope that I have answered your final questions within the context of the other parts of your post. If not, re-address, and I will answer.

Shalom,

Nathan

 

[muffler dragon]

Hi again, Muffler!

Let me steal a quote from the link I had provided:

First, from the Rabbinic scholar Solomon Schecter:



"It must first be stated that the term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means a teaching or an instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition in which Torah and Mizwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be found in the Rabbinic literature, implies already that the former means something more than merely the Law (e.g b. Ber 31a; b. Makk 23a; m. Abot 3.11). Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. (Solomon Schecter in [ART, p.117f])



"To the great majority of the Rabbis who retained their sober sense, and cared more about what God requires of us to be than about knowing what he is, the Torah was simply the manifestation of God's will, revealed to us for our good; the pedagogue, as the Rabbis expressed it, who educates God's creatures." [ART, p.135f]

Torah is, therefore, just God's instruction. It certainly includes the Mosaic teaching, but it does not exclude everything else. To be obedient to Torah means to be obedient to God's teachings as a whole, and not just adherence to certain passages in the Pentateuch.

Dear Daniel:

That quote is awesome, and quite correct. You have to forgive my surprise that someone on this forum would present that. I offer my apologies to you for assuming otherwise. We are on the same page of understanding.

Could you please further elaborate on this? Earlier you stated that you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect yet, since it doesn't appear as though we have the Torah of God written on our hearts. Is there an "already/not yet" dimension with the new covenant? If so, then I don't believe our views are that different.

The work of Y'shua is completed. The door has been opened, but not all have partaken of the renewed situation. We are in the process of the completion of the scenario. Does that make sense? The Torah of G-d is, from my perspective, not written on the hearts of men yet. However, the day is coming when that will be the case. The calling of Israel is part of that.

Let me make clear that I am not stating that the New Covenant is not in effect, I am simply saying that it is still in process. Y'shua started what was necessary.

No clarification was needed. I understood all along that you were not suggesting that obedience to the torah of Moses was necessary for salvation.

That's a rarity, but thank you once again for destroying my assumption.

I appreciate your openess and honesty on this, Muffler. But consider the implications of the tentative solution that you propose: if a principle can 'trump' another principle of torah (as Jesus suggested in John 7:22ff), then perhaps we need to think of how that might affect our obedience to torah today.

I wasn't speaking of trumping; I am simply saying that we need to understand the context. Furthermore, I am sure (and this is another assumption on the other side of the spectrum) that you are aware that a commandment of G-d can be broken to save a life? As long as you are not breaking the commandment to save a life in a bad manner. This is not a matter of trumping, but instead, preserving the sanctity of life. In Judaism, life stands above all else.

I agree, as I stated before, that Jeremiah 31 is a new covenant with Israel and not with some gentile entity. I do not believe that God made a seperate covenant with a gentile Church.

Okay.

Re-read 2 Corinthians 3:1-11. First, what was called "the ministry of death" was engraven on stones (v 7). Does this apply to man-made traditions? Second, it was given through Moses (again, v 7). Can it be said that man-made traditions were given through Moses?

I may have to do a partial or full recanting of what I said before. Therefore, let me do some study on this and get back to you.

Well...Muffler, all I can say is please try to understand the plainest meaning of the text, even if it (for now) might suggest a contradiction with what you understand about the Mosaic torah. I know sometimes in my Bible study I run across things that challenge my ideas and what I understand about other Scriptures. I haven't reconciled them all. But I honestly can't see how you can apply 2 Corinthians 3's description of a "minstry of death" to anything but the Mosaic code. I am, of course, open to another interpretation that fits the context, but so far I haven't seen one yet.

I may have to do a partial or full recanting of what I said before. Therefore, let me do some study on this and get back to you.

I will let you know where I stand on Scripture and you can take it or leave it:

A principle or doctrine in the "New" Testament must have validation and support in the Tanakh in order for me to accept it. That is the direction I will be coming from.

Now, one thing is that some translations use something other than "ministry of death". Perhaps that can shed light on the issue.

I know that I already stand corrected as far as what Sha'ul wrote. However, I intend on looking the Aramaic and Greek to see what exactly he meant.

[quote-Daniel]I totally agree; wouldn't it have been nice to have a copy of the other side of correspondence with Paul?[/quote]

Oh, so very much.

Sometimes the Churches had a large number of Jews, other times they had many gentiles. It depends on the Church.

I am not negating this truth. I am simply saying that the majority of the time it was Jew-related. Sure, there were gentiles present.

I have never challenged God's plan with the Jews. I firmly believe that, as Paul wrote in Romans 11:26, "all Israel shall be saved." God is not through with Israel-of-the-flesh, even if the majority of Paul's fellow countrymen are in a state of unbelief in their Messiah.

Thanks, Muffler. I would highly recommend many of the other articles on that website as well.

In Christ,

Daniel

Thanks for the clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

Dear Daniel:

In regards to the 'christian-thinktank' article, the one thing that is somewhat disappointing (as I scrolled through) is that Glenn does not look at the original text in defining the word 'new' concerning the covenant. He spent all that time regarding olam and never looked at 'new'.

Oh well.

m.d.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Dear NW:

Just to let you know: I wasn't giving a complete blessing to your statements. I just understand what you are saying. There are still some things I disagree with, but that's one of the things I enjoy about discoursing with you. There is no judgment coming from you within your opinions, and I try to give the same back. The only time when I get heated or nasty is when I am attacked. Granted, I need to get that under check. But it's a work in progress.

You might want to check out my "Messianic Understanding of Grace" thread in Spirit-filled forum for some ideas as to the natural progression of things in my thinking.

Shalom,

m.d.

Ok . I didn't see any blessings or curses from your previous post and so took it as is without either . I took it that you understood and that is all I really desire in forums .

I will check out that other thread . It may help in my understanding . About 20 years ago , I was heading towards a Jewish Christianity type idea but the Lord never led me to take the next steps .

 

[Carl Carlson]

You cannot get rid of the 10 Commandments.

The Law, when used lawfully, is good. The Law shows the sinner his sin, which is necessary for one to come to repentance. If someone told me that I needed to be saved from my sin without knowing the Laws that I had broken, I would think that man crazy, and also be offended. I would become hard soil to the Word of God. But if someone lovingly explained to me that I had violated God's law and that the punishment that we all deserve is death, I would then understand my need for a savior. But if the law is used to open my eyes, it becomes good. I then have the hard soil of my heart plowed.

Every man considers himself good. Without the Law exposing our sin, we will see no need for salvation.

Matthew 19:16-26
The Rich Young Man
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
19Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

It sounds as though Jesus missed a course in modern evanglism. Why didn't he tell him to just believe in him and be saved? Did he miss the mark? No. He rather saved the young man from becomg a backsliding, false convert. Without showing the man that he indeed wasn't good and applying the commandments to his heart, the man wouldn't have seen the need for the Savior. He would have continued to value his own possession over God, breaking the first commandment. Jesus simply used the Law to plow the young man's heart.

Romans 7:7-13, 24-25
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The Law is both good and necessary. It is written on our hearts as our conscience. You can take them out of our schools, court rooms and government offices, but they still exist and we are still judged by them. They will still condemn us unless we turn to our Savior Jesus Christ and follow Him.

May God show us what is Holy and true. Glory be to God. Amen.

 

[9-iron]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did you see that. Christ lives in us! Remember we are a made a new all things old have passed away and we are new creature in Christ. The Bible also says we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Where? In Christ Jesus, but He was righteous.

As far as sin issues, the Bible also says 'where grace abounds, sin has no reign'. So NO, I don't live according to the OT law or instructions as to what is right or wrong. I live according the work of Christ living in me. The only time I err, is when I live on my own accord. I don't need a written instructions to tell me it is wrong to LUST! Christ living within me brings about conviction that such action is wrong.

Conviction doesn't mean, oops I did something I shouldn't done. It says, hey, you aren't living the righteousness that Christ has created in you. STOP IT!!

 

[Carl Carlson]

It's true that Christ is our righteousness. When God looks at the sinner who has been washed in Jesus blood of righteousness, he sees His Son. He accepts that sinner. But that doesn't mean that we can get rid of the law.

The Law is good for the sinner. The Christian can live by faith in Jesus Christ and live in God's grace. We live by faith and not by sight. The sinner is blind to his sins and there for needs the Law of the Ten Commandments. If I told someone that he had a $5,000 fine that he needed to pay he would think I was crazy. If I kept insisted that it needed to be paid, he would probably get upset and reject anything that I had to say. If I explained to him that he had been excessively speeding in a handicap and deaf child area, he would realize what he had done wrong and come to grips with the penalty. He needs to see the sin, the penalty and the sacrifice. Only then will he be ready to accept the Savior who paid his fine in full. This is God's grace.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did you see that. Christ lives in us! Remember we are a made a new all things old have passed away and we are new creature in Christ. The Bible also says we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Where? In Christ Jesus, but He was righteous.

As far as sin issues, the Bible also says 'where grace abounds, sin has no reign'. So NO, I don't live according to the OT law or instructions as to what is right or wrong. I live according the work of Christ living in me. The only time I err, is when I live on my own accord. I don't need a written instructions to tell me it is wrong to LUST! Christ living within me brings about conviction that such action is wrong.

Conviction doesn't mean, oops I did something I shouldn't done. It says, hey, you aren't living the righteousness that Christ has created in you. STOP IT!!

True enough. But you have the law in a sense, abiding within you. It is also in this way that the righteousness of the believer exceeds that of the scribe, for in this "law" written upon our hearts there is no room for loopholes.

 

[9-iron]

True enough. But you have the law in a sense, abiding within you. It is also in this way that the righteousness of the believer exceeds that of the scribe, for in this "law" written upon our hearts there is no room for loopholes.

Good, thanks for finishing up my thought. Nice to see I am not a lone ranger.

 

[DanielRB]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did you see that. Christ lives in us! Remember we are a made a new all things old have passed away and we are new creature in Christ. The Bible also says we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Where? In Christ Jesus, but He was righteous.

As far as sin issues, the Bible also says 'where grace abounds, sin has no reign'. So NO, I don't live according to the OT law or instructions as to what is right or wrong. I live according the work of Christ living in me. The only time I err, is when I live on my own accord. I don't need a written instructions to tell me it is wrong to LUST! Christ living within me brings about conviction that such action is wrong.

Conviction doesn't mean, oops I did something I shouldn't done. It says, hey, you aren't living the righteousness that Christ has created in you. STOP IT!!

Very well said, 9-iron.

I'd also emphasize Romans 7:1-4

"Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. " (Romans 7:1-4, NASB95)
[1]
[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

The Law did not die; not a jot or tittle fell. But we died to the Law. Dead men aren't under the Law, not according to Paul in this passage. We dead to the Law but made alive by Christ Jesus to bear fruit to God.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[hola]

How can two walk together unless they be agreed?

I wouldn't see Jesus walking in sin. If I want to walk with him...I myself have to depart from iniquity. Or, I'd be walking in a different direction than he is.

But, I also understand that it's by the Spirit of God IN us...Christ who fulfilled the law, IN us...and by his Spirit and grace we are able to produce this fruit in which the OT law does not oppose.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thess. 5:22)

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

Jesus said ONLY God was good...to overcome evil with good would mean to overcome evil with God.

You will know a tree by its fruit. Show me that you really have God in you by the fruit of your life. If we have God...good, then let's yield to his Holy Spirit in us. Show me that the Son who has no sin in him lives in you...or do you not have God, and you still do the lusts of your "father", the devil, (this is not a personal attack on anyone, please note), or are you just turning the grace that God in you has given you into lasciviousness. In a way you can be implying: "Well, until God in me changes me, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing...because I just can't change myself." Well, that would make me question if you even had God in you to begin with. If you had God...you would have his grace, and you would have the power to change. Or...either you don't have God, or you are just not yielding to him and turning his grace into lasciviousness (and the Bible gives strong warnings concerning both of these kinds of people).

Am I implying "works salvation"...nope...God IS our salvation...salvation is only a gift....but what do we do with this gift? Consider the parable of the seed and the sower, and what each type of soil did with its "gift" received, which was the word of God...and we know that Jesus IS the Word of God...and we know that God gave his only begotten Son, Jesus, for all and to all the world (John 3:16).

I'm sure that many of you already agree with this...I just thought to "throw it in". I had to be corrected in a sense in the way that I used to explain this in the past.

God bless.

 

[Carl Carlson]

Good post, hola. I can't give you any rep, because you've blacked yourself out.

You and me should hang out some time. In fact, let's all get together. I'm busy this weekend, how's next weekend for everybody? Kansas should be a good central locale. There's this great little city called Lenexa, havent been there in years, it should be fun...

As far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, where would we be without them? I have earlier posts here should someone decide to disagree with me. It's possible, but I don't see why anyone would disagree with a guy who has a taco bell spice up the night membership card. Free nachos anyone?