Deuteronomy 8:3

[Soyeong]

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

To interpret the NT as speaking against obeying the Torah is to interpret it as speaking against living by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

 

[Clare73]

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

To interpret the NT as speaking against obeying the Torah is to interpret it as speaking against living by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

To deny the NT word of God which renders the Levitical sacrificial and purification laws obsolete (Heb 8:13) is to deny Christ's atonement once for all (Ro 6:10, Heb 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18).

 

[Soyeong]

To deny the NT word of God which renders the Levitical sacrificial and purification laws obsolete (Heb 8:13) is to deny Christ's atonement once for all (Ro 6:10, Heb 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18).

So do you think that Christ would affirm or deny the truth of Deuteronomy 8:3?

 

[Clare73]

To deny the NT word of God which renders the Levitical sacrificial and purification laws obsolete (Heb 8:13)
is to deny Christ's atonement once for all (Ro 6:10, Heb 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18).

So do you think that Christ would affirm or deny the truth of Deuteronomy 8:3?

So do you think that Christ would affirm or deny the truth of Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18?

I do know that the OT is the NT concealed, while the NT is the OT revealed.

 

[daq]

To deny the NT word of God which renders the Levitical sacrificial and purification laws obsolete (Heb 8:13) is to deny Christ's atonement once for all (Ro 6:10, Heb 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18).

Mark 9:43-50 KJV
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

The following is the only place in the Torah where the commandment to salt every sacrifice-offering is given.

Leviticus 2:13 KJV
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Therefore your statement concerning "the Levitical sacrifices and purification laws" having been made obsolete is merely your own testimony against what the Master himself teaches.

 

[Clare73]

Mark 9:43-50 KJV
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
The following is the only place in the Torah where the commandment to salt every sacrifice-offering is given.
Leviticus 2:13 KJV
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

And you don't know what that is about?

See Col 4:6, Mt 5:13.

Therefore your statement concerning "the Levitical sacrifices and purification laws" having been made obsolete is merely your own testimony against what the Master himself teaches.

And Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18 are just chopped liver?

 

[daq]

And you don't know what that is about?

Yes, I do, because I know that the Master is correctly interpreting the true meaning of the sacrifices in the Torah for me in that Mark passage, and therefore all the companion passages also. Moreover that is not all contained in Mark because the phrase "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" is a quote from Isaiah 66:24.

Context:

Isaiah 66:19-24 KJV
19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; [Mark 9:43-50] and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Isaiah 66:24 OG LXX
24 και εξελευσονται και οψονται τα κωλα [G2966] των ανθρωπων των παραβεβηκοτων εν εμοι ο γαρ σκωληξ αυτων ου τελευτησει και το πυρ αυτων ου σβεσθησεται και εσονται εις ορασιν παση σαρκι

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G2966 κῶλον kolon (kō'-lon) n.
a limb of the body (as if lopped).
[from the base of G2849]
KJV: carcase

"A limb of the body (as if lopped)." ~ Mark 9:43-50, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 18:8-9.

Secrets, secrets, because the Wisdom of Elohim is foolishness to the natural minded.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I do,

Good for you. . .

 

[daq]

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

To interpret the NT as speaking against obeying the Torah is to interpret it as speaking against living by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

Amen, also, both the LXX (Septuagint) and the temptation accounts use rhema for the phrase every word, (Dt 8:3 LXX, Mat 4:4, Luk 4:4), and rhema is even more specific than dabar, (Hebrew), because while dabar is rendered both as logos and rhema in the LXX, and can mean either one, rhema specifically denotes spoken word whereas logos denotes reason, reasoning, and hence, understanding, (by way of logic and logical reasoning, (logikos, from logos)). This is surely correct because it is plainly evident in the text, every word that proceeds from the mouth of Elohim, and therefore surely meaning spoken word.

Why is this point important? Because every commandment written in the Torah by Mosheh was first spoken to him by the Most High, and only after such things were spoken to Mosheh did he then write them down. There is no room to interpret the N/T as speaking against Dt 8:3, (which is how I voted). The Son can do nothing of himself, (Jhn 5:19), he is the Word of the Father, (both Rhema and Logos), and the Father says that His Word will not return to Him void, but shall accomplish His will.

Isaiah 55:10-11 KJV
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

In this verse also the Hebrew reads dabar while the LXX reads rhema.

 

[Soyeong]

So do you think that Christ would affirm or deny the truth of Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18?

I do know that the OT is the NT concealed, while the NT is the OT revealed.

It is shocking that you avoided answering my question. Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, including saying that man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord, so he very clearly affirmed Deuteronomy as being authoritative, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which prohibits adding to subtracting from the Torah, and Deuteronomy 13, where the way to determine that someone is a false prophet who is to speaking for God is if they speak against obeying the Torah. So I think that Christ would affirm the verses that you listed insofar as the correct interpretation of them is not contrary to anything in Deuteronomy. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if it comes down to a choice between obeying the words that have come out of the mouth of God or obeying the words that have come out of the mouth of men, then we must obey God rather than man, though the reality is that the NT was written by servants of God who therefore never spoke against anyone obeying anything that God has spoken.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

So do you think that Christ would affirm or deny the truth of Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18?

I do know that the OT is the NT concealed, while the NT is the OT revealed.

Claire, Paul is Not the way to eternal Life only Jesus IS! there is only one truth!

I have a question for you Claire, why was paul arrested by the , what was the reason? look up Acts 21 carefully

Jesus said the law would never pas

the ark of the covenant was seen by John in a future time in heaven ( see revelations) , the covenant is eternal;

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Claire not everything was yet fulfilled only in part, and the earth and Heaven still stand!

 

[Clare73]

It is shocking that you avoided answering my question.

No more shocking than your setting Dt 8:3 against the teaching of Jesus' apostles in Ro 6:10, 13:8, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18.

 

[Clare73]

Claire, Paul is Not the way to eternal Life only Jesus IS! there is only one truth!

Precisely!. . .and that you set Paul against Jesus is de facto proof of your error.

Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God (1& 2 Co 1:1, Gal & Eph 1:1, Col, 1 & 2 Tim, Tit 1:1).

I will not be relitigating with you the obsolence and replacement of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13) with the New (Heb 8:7-13).

I have a question for you Claire, why was paul arrested by the , what was the reason? look up Acts 21 carefully

Only heaven knows what you are getting at. . .

Some Jews stirred up the crowd, falsely accusing Paul of defiling the temple by bringing Gentiles into the temple area, and they tried to kill him.
The Roman commander arrested him and, when he realized Paul spoke Greek, thought Paul was a notorious Egyptian.
I suspect Paul was arrested by the commander of the Roman soldiers to rescue him from the Jews who were trying to kill him (Ac 21:31).

 

[Soyeong]

No more shocking than your setting Dt 8:3 against the teaching of Jesus' apostles in Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18.

I believe that the whole Bible is true, so I do not interpret any verses as contradicting each other, rather it is you who are interpreting the verses that you list in a way that is setting them against Deuteronomy 8:3. If you also believe that the whole Bible is true, then you will also conclude that you must have misunderstood those verses.

 

[Clare73]

I believe that the whole Bible is true, so I do not interpret any verses as contradicting each other, rather it is you who are interpreting the verses that you list in a way that is setting them against Deuteronomy 8:3. If you also believe that the whole Bible is true, then you will also conclude that you must have misunderstood those verses.

Good. . .then we are in agreement regarding Ro 6:10, 13: 8, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18.

See how easy that was?

 

[Soyeong]

Good. . .then we are in agreement regarding Ro 6:10, 13: 8, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18.

See how easy that was?

You set them against Deuteronomy 8:3, so we are not in agreement.

 

[Clare73]

You set them against Deuteronomy 8:3, so we are not in agreement.

No more than Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18 are set against the sacrifices of Leviticus.

It's not against Dt 8:3. . .but in the light of NT apostolic teaching of the new covenant--the old covenant being obsolete (Heb 8:13),
they are in fulfillment of Dt 8:3, just as Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18 are the fulfillment of much of Leviticus, which is likewise now obsolete (Heb 8:13).

 

[daq]

No more than Ro 6:10, Heb 8:13, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 1 Pe 3:18 are set against the sacrifices of Leviticus.

You've already been proven to be ignoring the Testimony of the Master in Mark 9:43-50, (Reply#5), and HIS interpretation of the sacrifices in Leviticus for HIS disciples who believe and walk in his all-important holy and approved Testimony, approved by the Father.

Since you have decided to ignore that evidence, you only now prove that you choose the same interpretation of the sacrificial commandments and offerings as the Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes, because they understood them the same way you do long before you ever came along, and Pharisaic Judaism still understands them the same way as you do even unto this day.

The outward physical interpretation is natural minded and incorrect and cannot please Elohim, and those faulty interpretations are the same Sanhedrin handwritten dogmas and ordinances that were foisted upon the people which the Master nailed to the stake. And because he was resurrected, the Father has spoken in that regard, proving that the Testimony of His Son was accepted as the correct and true understanding of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The Master put them all to shame, making a shew of them openly, just as Paul teaches, triumphing over the rulers of the people in those very things wherein they were in error. And yet here you are preaching the same interpretations of the Torah as the Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes so that you may make the claim that the Torah is obsolete.

The Torah isn't obsolete once we believe the Testimony of the Meshiah and begin to learn the new way of understanding the Torah through his Testimony, which expounds those things for us, that we may walk in the manner that is pleasing to the Father. This is true peace because it is peace between us and our heavenly Father by way of His Mediator whom He sent, (Meshiah), for it is pleasing unto Him that we actually hear His voice in His Torah-Instructions and walk according to His Way through His Son, His Word. In the way of the scripture, hearing is understanding: if one hears with the ears but does not understand, the same has not truly heard, though he or she may claim to have heard, (Isa 6:9-10, Mat 13:13-15). Likewise if one sees with the eyes, but does not understand the scripture having been read with the eyes, the same has not truly seen.

 

[DamianWarS]

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

To interpret the NT as speaking against obeying the Torah is to interpret it as speaking against living by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

scripture doesn't speak against scripture, and it's strawman to present an option where it does. Clearly your poll question only has 1 answer. but although scripture doesn't speak against scripture there are clear examples of contrast. The old testifies to the new so the focus is not how the new fits into the old, but how the old proclaims the new. Circumcision is a good example because of its uncompromising focus in the flesh in Gen 17 but then seen as a spiritual value in the new speaking of the flesh as nothing. the new shows us the meaning of the old, and we can walk in this revelation (the spiritual focus) without the requirement of the physical act of the old (cutting the flesh in the case of circumcision). Neither is speaking against the other, but new brings the old into fruition.

 

[Soyeong]

scripture doesn't speak against scripture, and it's strawman to present an option where it does. Clearly your poll question only has 1 answer. but although scripture doesn't speak against scripture there are clear examples of contrast.

Christians commonly interpret NT as speaking against the Torah, which is interpreting Scripture as speaking against Scripture, which is directly opposed to the position that man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord even though Jesus quoted that verse in order to defeat one of the temptations of Satan, which is a major flaw that the poll is intended to highlight.

The old testifies to the new so the focus is not how the new fits into the old, but how the old proclaims the new. Circumcision is a good example because of its uncompromising focus in the flesh in Gen 17 but then seen as a spiritual value in the new speaking of the flesh as nothing. the new shows us the meaning of the old, and we can walk in this revelation (the spiritual focus) without the requirement of the physical act of the old (cutting the flesh in the case of circumcision). Neither is speaking against the other, but new brings the old into fruition.

Having a circumcised heart is part of the OT (Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 9:25) and does not not for to anything other than someone who is living in obedience to the Torah, so that is not a change in the NT. In Romans 2:25, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew.