Been told

[yedida]

Would you care to give us your definition of mitzvot? I see you have included to versions of each reference. Very nice touch. I think that mitzvot and commandments are the same thing. So what exactly are they. I have had this naggin question for years. Are they the 10 commandments? If so how do you support that? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Yes, mitzvah is a command, mitzvot is the plural.
Yes, they are the 10 commandments along with the following chapters that expound on and give everyday application. But you will find other mitzvot in Gen., Lev. (most of these are for Levites, priests, to do with the Temple service, and for those living in the Land), Num. and in Deut., as well as the words of Jesus and the apostles. (But for me, the Greek writings are based on the Hebrew scriptures.)
We do not find eternal salvation in obeying Torah, we do not find nor seek merit in obeying Torah, but we do find joy in every opportunity to obey because God loved us enough to not only make a way to save us from our sins and gave His Spirit to us, He also gave us a standard of right-living. It is in this standard of a redeemed people that we are set apart from the rest of the world.
What's really amazing is that for the most part, the Holy Spirit will guide each of God's children in the way they should go and for the majority that's the way they live. All the do's and don't's. What most Christians fight so hard against, what they call the Law, they already do. And what you choose to not obey is the more visible part, and the most fun. The Festivals, just because the first 4 have been fulfilled is no reason not to observe them. (That's no different than celebrating your wedding anniversary. Why do you do it, you're already married? You do it because you love your spouse and happy you are married to him/her.) And if you believe that Jesus fulfilled the first 3 completely and fully and you believe that He is to fulfill the other 3 in like manner, wouldn't it behoove you to learn of them? They are all little dress rehearsals of things to come. The Sabbath is a weekly dress rehearsal of the Sabbath to come.

And as far as Paul or any of the other Apostles go, if it seems that what they say conflicts with what Jesus or Abba said about any given subject, I will defer to the higher authority.

 

[yedida]

I got excited about the Scriptures I saw and forgot about this opening comment altogether. Whoops So I had to come back to it. What I see is a stated assumption: it's reasonable the sounded VERY much like the Decalogue the He wrote Himself. So if you can show where this is so or even what makes you think such I would appreaciate it. It is like you're playing with blank cards that you get to put Ace of Spades and Ace of Hearts on to go with the Ace of Clubs and making it hard with that Ace of Diamonds. I guess that you also have the King of Spades to round out the hand. I wanna see this!!

You must deal with this Scripture Gal 3:19 - Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. The highlighted show that what we call the law was for a specific period of time. The word added would be more in line with annexed. An annex is never the main building. It is also not built at the same time as the main building. Till shows a termination.

Ok "It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...." The seed of promise would provide eternal once for all salvation, the parts of the law that had to do with right-standing before God was a place-keeper. The part of the law that is no longer needed are the sacrifices that had to do with fixing and maintaining one's standing before a holy God. That place-keeper has been replaced. The law that was to be obeyed has NOT been replaced, changed, nor abolished.
Let me cover a few of the lesser known "laws." If we see someone in need can we now turn a blind eye and keep on going or must we still offer help?
Can we now use faulty weights and measures in dealings with the public or must we still be honest and fair?
Can we now give false testimony against someone we don't really like or for someone we do like, or must we still tell the truth as we understand it to be?
Can we now be disrespectful of our elders because they are a little slow physically and sometimes slow on the uptake or should we still stand to our feet when an elderly person enters the room?

You see, the law still holds. It's the death penalty that has been abolished for those who trust in the Lord to have taken our punishment upon Himself. The place-keeper is no longer needed, it has been done away with. Without the Lord there is no place-keeper any longer. Those who are not in the Lord will taste of the wages of sin.

 

[yedida]

Yedida I'm am very interested i n what you have to say about Deut 5:1-5.

Deu 5:1 Then — Moshe called to all Isra'el and said to them, "Listen, Isra'el, to the laws and rulings which I am announcing in your hearing today, so that you will learn them and take care to obey them.
Deu 5:2 Adonai our God made a covenant with us at Horev.
Deu 5:3 Adonai did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us — with us, who are all of us here alive today.
Deu 5:4 Adonai spoke with you face to face from the fire on the mountain.
Deu 5:5 At that time I stood between Adonai and you in order to tell you what Adonai was saying; because, on account of the fire, you were afraid and wouldn't go up onto the mountain.

I’m guessing it’s the highlighted words you’re asking about?
That’s actually an easy one. Prior to the 400 years in Egypt, God was dealing with just a small family. There were only 71 people belonging to God that entered Egypt. I have no doubt these 71 people knew about the sacrifices, and many of the laws dealing with people, but they were familial type laws. Other than what the 71 had at entrance, most likely no other laws were given to the Hebrews in Egypt, they could not have been obeyed, they were under subjection in a land not their own.
Again, I have no doubt that what the 71 had at entry, they continued in the best they could. And they must have spread the words (laws) from generation to generation since we have the words that the Hebrew midwives feared God and wouldn’t obey the civil law to kill the infant boys.
All of the workings of God from Abraham to Jacob going into Egypt was a preparation. Egypt was a pruning. They left Egypt on their way to the Promised Land so they received further instruction on how to live. They were supposed to go directly into the Promised Land but they refused. So here we are in Dt. 5:1-5, getting ready to hear some further instructions on how to live in the Land.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Ok "It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...." The seed of promise would provide eternal once for all salvation, the parts of the law that had to do with right-standing before God was a place-keeper. The part of the law that is no longer needed are the sacrifices that had to do with fixing and maintaining one's standing before a holy God. That place-keeper has been replaced. The law that was to be obeyed has NOT been replaced, changed, nor abolished.
Let me cover a few of the lesser known "laws." If we see someone in need can we now turn a blind eye and keep on going or must we still offer help?
Can we now use faulty weights and measures in dealings with the public or must we still be honest and fair?
Can we now give false testimony against someone we don't really like or for someone we do like, or must we still tell the truth as we understand it to be?
Can we now be disrespectful of our elders because they are a little slow physically and sometimes slow on the uptake or should we still stand to our feet when an elderly person enters the room?

You see, the law still holds. It's the death penalty that has been abolished for those who trust in the Lord to have taken our punishment upon Himself. The place-keeper is no longer needed, it has been done away with. Without the Lord there is no place-keeper any longer. Those who are not in the Lord will taste of the wages of sin.

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

 

[yedida]

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

As I stated in an earlier post (in a slightly different way) I think most of the cringing from the "law" is due to misunderstanding just what it is and also in misunderstanding where Paul was coming from.
Most of the people in Jesus' and Paul's time were under strict observance of the law, not the law we are familiar with but with Rabbinic rulings. Don't get me wrong, many of the rabbis were sincerely devout men, but the majority who had the Temple rule at the time were the Saduccees and most were corrupt, twisting and using the Torah to their own benefit and crushing the common people.
Also, many during that time had gotten away from the grace that was to be found in Torah and had begun looking to the laws therein for merits of greater righteousness than what the Torah offered. Prior to Jesus, there was a righteousness in keeping Torah with a right heart, and combined with the sacrifices, there was atonement and right-standing with God to be found. There is still today a righteousness to be found in it's observance, but it isn't the saving kind, at least not for us who know the Promised One.

Let's look at those passages (I don't like pulling out just one verse, it's best to read before and after our focus verse(s)). These from 1Jn are pretty self-explanatory. Not obeying Torah is sin. Jesus appeared to take away sins once and for all for all who trust in Him. And if we continue in Him sin will have less and less hold over us, for we are not united with sin nor its consequences. And if we choose to obey Torah (where we can - not everything can be done today, i.e., things to do with the temple, and not every law applies to every individual) thenn we're saying, "No!" to sin.
1Jn 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin in him.
1Jn 3:6 So no one who remains united with him continues sinning; everyone who does continue sinning has neither seen him nor known him.

Commenting on these verses would just be redundant. You're right, verse 14 explains all the verses before and after.
Rom 4:11 In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised. This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him,
Rom 4:12 and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b'rit-milah, but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Avraham and his seed that he would inherit the world did not come through legalism but through the righteousness that trust produces.
Rom 4:14 For if the heirs are produced by legalism, then trust is pointless and the promise worthless.
Rom 4:15 For what law brings is punishment. But where there is no law, there is also no violation.
Rom 4:16 The reason the promise is based on trusting is so that it may come as God's free gift, a promise that can be relied on by all the seed, not only those who live within the framework of the Torah, but also those with the kind of trust Avraham had — Avraham avinu for all of us.
Rom 4:17 This accords with the Tanakh, where it says, "I have appointed you to be a father to many nations." Avraham is our father in God's sight because he trusted God as the one who gives life to the dead and calls nonexistent things into existence.

Be blessed in your studies. Shalom.

 

[yedida]

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

See post #163.
I believe that there was indeed "laws" or "instructions" given to one single man, Avraham, who in turn taught them to Isaac, who taught them to Jacob, and he to his descendants.
But they were not recorded for us. And I don't believe they were as comprehensive as we find in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Why? He was dealing with one literal slightly extended family (servants and their families probably being included).
And I also believe they were very much like, if not exactly like, the 10 Words that we have in Exodus. After all, the first 5 of those are about one's relationship with God, and the other 5 are one's relationship with other people. The Decalogue continues in the insuing chapters in Exodus after the 10 Words are given and those simply expound on the 10 but those (or the vast majority of them anyway) would not benefit the Hebrews in Egypt, so they were probably not a part of what was already known.
I'm getting redundant now, so read post 163 for more info, please.
I hope I've helped a bit.....

 

[Frogster]

Yes, mitzvah is a command, mitzvot is the plural.
Yes, they are the 10 commandments along with the following chapters that expound on and give everyday application. But you will find other mitzvot in Gen., Lev. (most of these are for Levites, priests, to do with the Temple service, and for those living in the Land), Num. and in Deut., as well as the words of Jesus and the apostles. (But for me, the Greek writings are based on the Hebrew scriptures.)
We do not find eternal salvation in obeying Torah, we do not find nor seek merit in obeying Torah, but we do find joy in every opportunity to obey because God loved us enough to not only make a way to save us from our sins and gave His Spirit to us, He also gave us a standard of right-living. It is in this standard of a redeemed people that we are set apart from the rest of the world.
What's really amazing is that for the most part, the Holy Spirit will guide each of God's children in the way they should go and for the majority that's the way they live. All the do's and don't's. What most Christians fight so hard against, what they call the Law, they already do. And what you choose to not obey is the more visible part, and the most fun. The Festivals, just because the first 4 have been fulfilled is no reason not to observe them. (That's no different than celebrating your wedding anniversary. Why do you do it, you're already married? You do it because you love your spouse and happy you are married to him/her.) And if you believe that Jesus fulfilled the first 3 completely and fully and you believe that He is to fulfill the other 3 in like manner, wouldn't it behoove you to learn of them? They are all little dress rehearsals of things to come. The Sabbath is a weekly dress rehearsal of the Sabbath to come.

And as far as Paul or any of the other Apostles go, if it seems that what they say conflicts with what Jesus or Abba said about any given subject, I will defer to the higher authority.

So your basically prooftexting history, when you say higher authority, because you are ignoring the fact that Jesus called paul, and two times in Acts, Jesus told Paul to keep going, so it seems that he aproved his message.


Do you listen to torah, and eye for an eye? Jesus changed that. In the OT God said he would not justify the wicked now he does, who you gonna listen to? Jesus declared all foods clean.

 

[Frogster]

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

Because you have had it explained to you. read Rom 5. Sin was in the world, before the law, it entered through Adam, we all know that, adams One sin, spread, and so did the condemnation. THEN the law cames to INCREASE the trespass....

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

But that does not mean they had the mosaic law, that gal 3:17 says came 430 years later. It is called federal headship, just like if the president messed up, and that meant that the whole country went with him.

Actually, with obam, that might happen!

 

[Frogster]

Yes, mitzvah is a command, mitzvot is the plural.
Yes, they are the 10 commandments along with the following chapters that expound on and give everyday application. But you will find other mitzvot in Gen., Lev. (most of these are for Levites, priests, to do with the Temple service, and for those living in the Land), Num. and in Deut., as well as the words of Jesus and the apostles. (But for me, the Greek writings are based on the Hebrew scriptures.)
We do not find eternal salvation in obeying Torah, we do not find nor seek merit in obeying Torah, but we do find joy in every opportunity to obey because God loved us enough to not only make a way to save us from our sins and gave His Spirit to us, He also gave us a standard of right-living. It is in this standard of a redeemed people that we are set apart from the rest of the world.
What's really amazing is that for the most part, the Holy Spirit will guide each of God's children in the way they should go and for the majority that's the way they live. All the do's and don't's. What most Christians fight so hard against, what they call the Law, they already do. And what you choose to not obey is the more visible part, and the most fun. The Festivals, just because the first 4 have been fulfilled is no reason not to observe them. (That's no different than celebrating your wedding anniversary. Why do you do it, you're already married? You do it because you love your spouse and happy you are married to him/her.) And if you believe that Jesus fulfilled the first 3 completely and fully and you believe that He is to fulfill the other 3 in like manner, wouldn't it behoove you to learn of them? They are all little dress rehearsals of things to come. The Sabbath is a weekly dress rehearsal of the Sabbath to come.

And as far as Paul or any of the other Apostles go, if it seems that what they say conflicts with what Jesus or Abba said about any given subject, I will defer to the higher authority.

as far as abolished, and 5:19. that was pre-cross, and Jesus was just saying he was not coming to abolishe the OT, the law and the prophets, then we see in luke 24, he fulfilled all. Then it was taken to the tree, where the full curse was on him, whereby ending that dispensation, or the curse would still be active.

yes, the law stand forever, to condemn the unsaved, as paul, who said it was abolished used it in 1Tim 1, and rom 1-3. But it is abolished for the Christian, the tutor is gone, as per gal 3.

 

[Frogster]

See post #163.
I believe that there was indeed "laws" or "instructions" given to one single man, Avraham, who in turn taught them to Isaac, who taught them to Jacob, and he to his descendants.
But they were not recorded for us. And I don't believe they were as comprehensive as we find in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Why? He was dealing with one literal slightly extended family (servants and their families probably being included).
And I also believe they were very much like, if not exactly like, the 10 Words that we have in Exodus. After all, the first 5 of those are about one's relationship with God, and the other 5 are one's relationship with other people. The Decalogue continues in the insuing chapters in Exodus after the 10 Words are given and those simply expound on the 10 but those (or the vast majority of them anyway) would not benefit the Hebrews in Egypt, so they were probably not a part of what was already known.
I'm getting redundant now, so read post 163 for more info, please.
I hope I've helped a bit.....

Curious. Why did Peter, call the law, a yoke he, not the fathers could bear, of torah life was so wonderful? james even said not to burden the Gentiles, with this wonderful torah life in acts 15, I know this is not what u r saying here, just asking here though.

 

[Frogster]

As I stated in an earlier post (in a slightly different way) I think most of the cringing from the "law" is due to misunderstanding just what it is and also in misunderstanding where Paul was coming from.
Most of the people in Jesus' and Paul's time were under strict observance of the law, not the law we are familiar with but with Rabbinic rulings. Don't get me wrong, many of the rabbis were sincerely devout men, but the majority who had the Temple rule at the time were the Saduccees and most were corrupt, twisting and using the Torah to their own benefit and crushing the common people.
Also, many during that time had gotten away from the grace that was to be found in Torah and had begun looking to the laws therein for merits of greater righteousness than what the Torah offered. Prior to Jesus, there was a righteousness in keeping Torah with a right heart, and combined with the sacrifices, there was atonement and right-standing with God to be found. There is still today a righteousness to be found in it's observance, but it isn't the saving kind, at least not for us who know the Promised One.

Let's look at those passages (I don't like pulling out just one verse, it's best to read before and after our focus verse(s)). These from 1Jn are pretty self-explanatory. Not obeying Torah is sin. Jesus appeared to take away sins once and for all for all who trust in Him. And if we continue in Him sin will have less and less hold over us, for we are not united with sin nor its consequences. And if we choose to obey Torah (where we can - not everything can be done today, i.e., things to do with the temple, and not every law applies to every individual) thenn we're saying, "No!" to sin.
1Jn 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin in him.
1Jn 3:6 So no one who remains united with him continues sinning; everyone who does continue sinning has neither seen him nor known him.

Commenting on these verses would just be redundant. You're right, verse 14 explains all the verses before and after.
Rom 4:11 In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised. This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him,
Rom 4:12 and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b'rit-milah, but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Avraham and his seed that he would inherit the world did not come through legalism but through the righteousness that trust produces.
Rom 4:14 For if the heirs are produced by legalism, then trust is pointless and the promise worthless.
Rom 4:15 For what law brings is punishment. But where there is no law, there is also no violation.
Rom 4:16 The reason the promise is based on trusting is so that it may come as God's free gift, a promise that can be relied on by all the seed, not only those who live within the framework of the Torah, but also those with the kind of trust Avraham had — Avraham avinu for all of us.
Rom 4:17 This accords with the Tanakh, where it says, "I have appointed you to be a father to many nations." Avraham is our father in God's sight because he trusted God as the one who gives life to the dead and calls nonexistent things into existence.

Be blessed in your studies. Shalom.

As far as living in the framework of the Torah. Why did Paul not want the framewrok for the galatians, who in fact, had the spirit, they were running well, 5;7, until the law people came, then we see in 5, that they started biting and devouring, and competing, after the torah came into their minds.

 

[from scratch]

Yes, mitzvah is a command, mitzvot is the plural.
Yes, they are the 10 commandments along with the following chapters that expound on and give everyday application. But you will find other mitzvot in Gen., Lev. (most of these are for Levites, priests, to do with the Temple service, and for those living in the Land), Num. and in Deut., as well as the words of Jesus and the apostles. (But for me, the Greek writings are based on the Hebrew scriptures.)
We do not find eternal salvation in obeying Torah, we do not find nor seek merit in obeying Torah, but we do find joy in every opportunity to obey because God loved us enough to not only make a way to save us from our sins and gave His Spirit to us, He also gave us a standard of right-living. It is in this standard of a redeemed people that we are set apart from the rest of the world.
What's really amazing is that for the most part, the Holy Spirit will guide each of God's children in the way they should go and for the majority that's the way they live. All the do's and don't's. What most Christians fight so hard against, what they call the Law, they already do. And what you choose to not obey is the more visible part, and the most fun. The Festivals, just because the first 4 have been fulfilled is no reason not to observe them. (That's no different than celebrating your wedding anniversary. Why do you do it, you're already married? You do it because you love your spouse and happy you are married to him/her.) And if you believe that Jesus fulfilled the first 3 completely and fully and you believe that He is to fulfill the other 3 in like manner, wouldn't it behoove you to learn of them? They are all little dress rehearsals of things to come. The Sabbath is a weekly dress rehearsal of the Sabbath to come.

And as far as Paul or any of the other Apostles go, if it seems that what they say conflicts with what Jesus or Abba said about any given subject, I will defer to the higher authority.

Thank you for your definition of mitzvah/mitzvot and discussion.

I truely do see no harm in celebrating the Jewish feasts and agree that they can be pleasurable. As to the Sabbath I don't think it will be a weekly period of time. I present you with no Scripture because I don't wish you to be offended and not because I can't support my position. If you had given Scripture in your reply I would have responded to it with a reasonable presentation. I have defended my position all over the forum with Scripture and you can see it in most any recent thread concerning law or the Sabbath in GT and this section. My chief basis is that we are under the new covenant Jeremiah spoke about and Jesus (God) testified is the current covenant in 3 Gospels with very direct and plain words.

Coincidence is not observance or keeping. My neighbor has intgretity and seems to live an upright life. That is I can't condemn them by the law. It is indeed a dirty shame that so called Christians don't do better. All things considered I will not do business with anyone that even mentions church or religion during the course of business. The reason is they're both over priced with shody craftsmanship and dishonest when they refuse to make it right without sueing them. They very much disgrace Jesus and give every reason to not be associated with the church. Those same people will complain about the price others charge and won't buy from me unless I sell at less than cost while paying some one else more. Tis interesting.

Anyway back to your post. Basicly the Christian isn't obligated to the law and it wasn't ever given to the gentile - goyium. It is very true that Christianity is developed from the law. I ask you to consider Isa 28:10 - For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

If one looks real close you can easily see this in the development and morphing of the Sabbath even within the Torah. I find it very interesting that the same word usually cited in Genesis 2 is the same word used in Hosea 2 concerning the Sabbath. It is translated more correctly and properly understood in our society today. The semantics the law pusher tries to jump thru are most increditable.

I probably missed something in your post. Please call it to my attention again.

 

[yedida]

So your basically prooftexting history, when you say higher authority, because you are ignoring the fact that Jesus called paul, and two times in Acts, Jesus told Paul to keep going, so it seems that he aproved his message.


Do you listen to torah, and eye for an eye? Jesus changed that. In the OT God said he would not justify the wicked now he does, who you gonna listen to? Jesus declared all foods clean.

You asked a question, I answered as best I could. If you want to call using full passages, and not just isolated verses as proof-texting, well so be it. So far, every way I've tried to answer you, you accuse me of proof-texting, it's a no-win situation with you.Could it be that you're having a problem because I don't agree with you.
Why do folks always go for the eye for an eye, life for a life, and ignore a tooth for a tooth, a bruise for a bruise. Could it be that you really do understand what that passage is saying, but it just doesn't fit your agenda? You can see how ludicrous your rendering would be of the whole passage? You punched me in the face and I lost a tooth - cool, now I can legally hit you back and drop your tooth. Aaaahhh, it better be the same tooth, and if I loosen another of your teeth, guess you'll have turn around and loosen my same tooth - see where this is going? I don't think this is what God had in mind when he was speaking those words......

As for the last statement, that was nothing more than an insertion by a copiest, most texts that use it say as much. And food wasn't even the subject of the discussion at that time, doing something that was not commanded in place of obeying a clear commandment was the subject. But in answer to the argument, just because something is edible does not make it "food" in God's eyes. With very few exceptions, when an item is mentioned in the Bible as "food" it will be found on the dietary list as good and clean. If it is not listed as "good" and/or "clean" then it is NOT food in God's estimation, nor would it be to a Jew. They would never have to have a discussion about whether or not shrimp was allowed - they knew what seafoods were "kosher" and would never have need to discuss the "cleanness" or "uncleanness" of shrimp - shrimp, to an observant Jew is not even considered "food."

I have found that God and His desires for His creatures are not ambiguous. What He desires and commands is clearly stated.
We have the option of doing what is right in our own eyes or following what He said. Even if I had my doubts, which I don't, but I'd rather be found wrong in obedience than wrong in rebellion and disobedience.

 

[from scratch]

"it was added because of transgressions".

this is what i don't understand from the others on this forum.

they say there was no law before sinai, yet gal 3:19 says the law was added because of transgressions.

transgressions are sin and we know what 1jn 3:4 says.

put all that with rom 4:15, last part, and i don't see how the "law haters" get away with using this verse to support what they say.

it defies logic to me! :o

If it was added or annexed how can it have possilby been the main structure as you insist?

That is very true about I Jn 3:4 and Romans 14:23b for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Plainly states more about sin as even more verses do. What I don't understand is why the law pusher never ever say anything about this verse. I also don't understand why they never ever refer to I Jn 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. This defines and limits what the current command of God the Father is.

The term 'law haters' is derogatory. We don't hate the law. We have it in its rightful place as adherants of the new covenant. According to Jer 31:31-34 I see no problem even with logic. Please consider exactly what it says. We have been over this in detail before.

 

[Frogster]

You asked a question, I answered as best I could. If you want to call using full passages, and not just isolated verses as proof-texting, well so be it. So far, every way I've tried to answer you, you accuse me of proof-texting, it's a no-win situation with you.Could it be that you're having a problem because I don't agree with you.
Why do folks always go for the eye for an eye, life for a life, and ignore a tooth for a tooth, a bruise for a bruise. Could it be that you really do understand what that passage is saying, but it just doesn't fit your agenda? You can see how ludicrous your rendering would be of the whole passage? You punched me in the face and I lost a tooth - cool, now I can legally hit you back and drop your tooth. Aaaahhh, it better be the same tooth, and if I loosen another of your teeth, guess you'll have turn around and loosen my same tooth - see where this is going? I don't think this is what God had in mind when he was speaking those words......

As for the last statement, that was nothing more than an insertion by a copiest, most texts that use it say as much. And food wasn't even the subject of the discussion at that time, doing something that was not commanded in place of obeying a clear commandment was the subject. But in answer to the argument, just because something is edible does not make it "food" in God's eyes. With very few exceptions, when an item is mentioned in the Bible as "food" it will be found on the dietary list as good and clean. If it is not listed as "good" and/or "clean" then it is NOT food in God's estimation, nor would it be to a Jew. They would never have to have a discussion about whether or not shrimp was allowed - they knew what seafoods were "kosher" and would never have need to discuss the "cleanness" or "uncleanness" of shrimp - shrimp, to an observant Jew is not even considered "food."

That "what is food" argument, has been exhausted. Here, what kind of food, did a roman guard serve to Paul in Phil, in a place that had so few jews, there was not even a synagogue?

34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Notice the comparison, or OUR (gentile), with the Jews, it was practically all Gentile, hence, the romans guard served unkosher food to Paul.

20 And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, “These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our gentile)city.

I have found that God and His desires for His creatures are not ambiguous. What He desires and commands is clearly stated.
We have the option of doing what is right in our own eyes or following what He said. Even if I had my doubts, which I don't, but I'd rather be found wrong in obedience than wrong in rebellion and disobedience.

As far as Mark 7:19 goes, it was in Acts 10, about Peter, the then ate with Gentiles, read acts 11:3. Paul said all is clean too. The sheet had every kind of "food'. God said...EAT. One eats FOOD. Besides, in Genesis, he said..

Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Two of our most respectable quoted , renown scholars, FF Bruce, and JB Lightfoot, say mark 7:19, is what it means, soooo...

Peter ate..

3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

It was in gal 2, Peter was eating with Gentiles.


12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

 

[Frogster]

You asked a question, I answered as best I could. If you want to call using full passages, and not just isolated verses as proof-texting, well so be it. So far, every way I've tried to answer you, you accuse me of proof-texting, it's a no-win situation with you.Could it be that you're having a problem because I don't agree with you.
Why do folks always go for the eye for an eye, life for a life, and ignore a tooth for a tooth, a bruise for a bruise. Could it be that you really do understand what that passage is saying, but it just doesn't fit your agenda? You can see how ludicrous your rendering would be of the whole passage? You punched me in the face and I lost a tooth - cool, now I can legally hit you back and drop your tooth. Aaaahhh, it better be the same tooth, and if I loosen another of your teeth, guess you'll have turn around and loosen my same tooth - see where this is going? I don't think this is what God had in mind when he was speaking those words......

As for the last statement, that was nothing more than an insertion by a copiest, most texts that use it say as much. And food wasn't even the subject of the discussion at that time, doing something that was not commanded in place of obeying a clear commandment was the subject. But in answer to the argument, just because something is edible does not make it "food" in God's eyes. With very few exceptions, when an item is mentioned in the Bible as "food" it will be found on the dietary list as good and clean. If it is not listed as "good" and/or "clean" then it is NOT food in God's estimation, nor would it be to a Jew. They would never have to have a discussion about whether or not shrimp was allowed - they knew what seafoods were "kosher" and would never have need to discuss the "cleanness" or "uncleanness" of shrimp - shrimp, to an observant Jew is not even considered "food."

I have found that God and His desires for His creatures are not ambiguous. What He desires and commands is clearly stated.
We have the option of doing what is right in our own eyes or following what He said. Even if I had my doubts, which I don't, but I'd rather be found wrong in obedience than wrong in rebellion and disobedience.

Soooo, what do you say about Luke's account, that Peter called the law a yoke, that he, nor the fathers could bear?

 

[yedida]

Soooo, what do you say about Luke's account, that Peter called the law a yoke, that he, nor the fathers could bear?

He is either referring to the Oral Traditions or he is calling God a liar. You choose.

 

[from scratch]

Yes, mitzvah is a command, mitzvot is the plural.
Yes, they are the 10 commandments along with the following chapters that expound on and give everyday application. But you will find other mitzvot in Gen., Lev. (most of these are for Levites, priests, to do with the Temple service, and for those living in the Land), Num. and in Deut., as well as the words of Jesus and the apostles. (But for me, the Greek writings are based on the Hebrew scriptures.)So I want to ask you as a matter of curiousity: Do you believe the NT is original in Greek or in Hebrew? I missed this in my prior post. Thanks.

 

[yedida]

I believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. As for some of the other books, there is no reason to believe that if the book was intended primarily for a Jewish audience that it would be written in Greek by a Jew who also speaks Hebrew; if the book was mainly for non-Hebrew speaking audiences then it was most likely penned in Greek. It wouldn't be beyond belief to find that they were penned in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek simultaneously.

 

[from scratch]

As I stated in an earlier post (in a slightly different way) I think most of the cringing from the "law" is due to misunderstanding just what it is and also in misunderstanding where Paul was coming from.
Most of the people in Jesus' and Paul's time were under strict observance of the law, not the law we are familiar with but with Rabbinic rulings. Don't get me wrong, many of the rabbis were sincerely devout men, but the majority who had the Temple rule at the time were the Saduccees and most were corrupt, twisting and using the Torah to their own benefit and crushing the common people.
Also, many during that time had gotten away from the grace that was to be found in Torah and had begun looking to the laws therein for merits of greater righteousness than what the Torah offered. Prior to Jesus, there was a righteousness in keeping Torah with a right heart, and combined with the sacrifices, there was atonement and right-standing with God to be found. There is still today a righteousness to be found in it's observance, but it isn't the saving kind, at least not for us who know the Promised One.

Let's look at those passages (I don't like pulling out just one verse, it's best to read before and after our focus verse(s)). These from 1Jn are pretty self-explanatory. Not obeying Torah is sin. Jesus appeared to take away sins once and for all for all who trust in Him. And if we continue in Him sin will have less and less hold over us, for we are not united with sin nor its consequences. And if we choose to obey Torah (where we can - not everything can be done today, i.e., things to do with the temple, and not every law applies to every individual) thenn we're saying, "No!" to sin.
1Jn 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin in him.
1Jn 3:6 So no one who remains united with him continues sinning; everyone who does continue sinning has neither seen him nor known him.

I agree that not obeying Torah is sin if one is subject to that law. For context, who is John addressing here? Is the we a gentile church, a Jewish church or even a mixture? I really don't see to whom specifically the letter is addressed to. I believe that John is consistant in what he refers to. I think that verse 23 of the same chapter makes it very clear that he isn't talking about the Torah. You did say something about context. Here is the verse: And this is His [God the Father] commandment, That we should believe on the name of His [same as the first His obviously] Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He [Jesus] gave us commandment. I believe that the sentence structure will plainly bear the truth I have placed in brackets. I can further support this idea that the commandments (law/Torah) are different than issued at Mt Sinai. I'm not sure I understand yourpoint on Rom 4:14 so I didn't include in in this post.