Did Paul Do This?

[AnticipateHisComing]

But sometimes the simplest concepts are the ones that we overlook. For example.. is "believe" in John 3:16 just being firmly convinced? I used to think so and then I realized something one day, why is it that in the KJV John 3:16 has "believETH" when in other places (like James 2:19) it lacks the "eth?" I learned that the translators where differentiating between two different forms of a Greek word and in this case, the "eth" shows an ACTIVE form whereas the lack of one (like in James 2:19) it is a passive form. In other words, John 3:16 demands action... whereas James 2:19 does not. Simple.. yes... but this is why we are still told to study.

Anything so intricate that gets "lost" in translation is automatically no longer simple doctrine necessary for salvation. Jesus in the parable said those that work one hour get salvation just like those that work all day. Always be leary of "private" translations where the one providing it places his understanding of it as utmost importance to salvation. Scripture is bound to be God's word protected. I trust the Holy Spirit guides the translators and the readers that they who read it completely will have sufficient knowledge for salvation.

 

[Ken Rank]

We now look at with this kind of thinking after the preaching of Jesus. Such a progressive spiritual dimension never occurred to Pharisees, Scribes and Jews before. That is why Torah had become Talmud.

#1 with respect I say this but it hard for me to not sound incredulous.... where in the WORLD did you get the idea that the "Torah" became the Talmud? I have NEVER heard that claim before and it is, simply, wrong. The "Torah" is two things... the First 5 books of your bible (and mine) and also the collection of commandments/instructions of God as a whole... which is also found in our bibles. The Talmud is basically a book of rabbinic debate and discussion about the Torah with their interpretations included.

As for some new spiritual leap we took... I tend to shy away from that. The Greeks spiritualized everything and considered "form" (what something looks like, how precisely things fit together) whereas the Jewish people (which would include Messiah and his disciples) considered the "function" of things (how they can WORK together for the good of the whole DESPITE any differences).

God does not change.

 

[Ken Rank]

Anything so intricate that gets "lost" in translation is automatically no longer simple doctrine necessary for salvation.

Said from your own bias, you have no proof of that statement. And the FACT that I can take two different translations and show you two entirely different paths based on how certain things are translated means sometimes things getting lost in translation... is a work of the Adversary.

 

[Righttruth]

#1 with respect I say this but it hard for me to not sound incredulous.... where in the WORLD did you get the idea that the "Torah" became the Talmud? I have NEVER heard that claim before and it is, simply, wrong. The "Torah" is two things... the First 5 books of your bible (and mine) and also the collection of commandments/instructions of God as a whole... which is also found in our bibles. The Talmud is basically a book of rabbinic debate and discussion about the Torah with their interpretations included.

Which is important of the two?

As for some new spiritual leap we took... I tend to shy away from that. The Greeks spiritualized everything and considered "form" (what something looks like, how precisely things fit together) whereas the Jewish people (which would include Messiah and his disciples) considered the "function" of things (how they can WORK together for the good of the whole DESPITE any differences).

God does not change.

What do you understand by 'worshiping God in spirit and truth'?

 

[Ken Rank]

Which is important of the two?

You just stated they were the same thing and I showed you they are not... one remains GOD's Instructions/commandments and the other MAN's interpretations. While we can glean some thoughts from the latter and certainly maybe pick up a few nuances that might add some context to the time period in question... the former, again, is God's Word. So are you really asking me which one I think is more important?

What do you understand by 'worshiping God in spirit and truth'?

The word "worship" (shachah in Hebrew) means in literal terms, "to bend, to bow, to prostrate oneself." So while bowing before God is a form of worship... the picture we can draw form this is submission. We don't bow before one we do not serve, we do not prostrate ourselves before one we do not serve... so worship is about submission but not just submission... it is ALL WE DO because we have submitted to Him. Submission in spirit, submission in truth... hearing God, doing what He commands... every word and deed reflecting His character and authority to the world around us.

Worship is not just raising hands and singing... remember the verse in James where it states, "true religion is this..." and then he lists off taking care of orphans and the needy? The word for religion can also be translated as worship.

Shalom.

 

[sparow]

It would be helpful if you hit "reply" to the posts you want to comment on or use @ and then the users name to tag them. Otherwise, we don't know when you have commented and nobody has time to read every post.

To address your points... there are many things that are NEW in the "new covenant" and you picked up on some. However, some you picked are not new. A new Kingdom? For example, there are two priesthoods. One is the Levitical and serves Israel... the other IS ISRAEL and serves the nations. The latter isn't new, how can the "Order of Melchizedek" be "new" when Abraham tied to this "priest" in Genesis? So it isn't new, not at all.... but our functioning within it is. To add to your picks... we have the Torah, the Law, literally "the instructions" of God. They were placed on stone (in writing by man) and they are being moved to the mind and heart by God. The latter is NEW but the Torah itself is not.

The words mean what they mean sparow, and the hard part is just getting our own bias to back off and let it say what is says. IN EVERY CASE but once in the NT, when you see "new covenant" you will find the word kainos. The one time you find nehos with covenant, the context is dealing with taking the Law from stone to the heart. You start looking around... Yeshua says, "I give you two NEW commandments," but the commandments he gives are in the Torah. Loving God and neighbor were not new at all, perhaps the depth (intent, spirit) behind them is new in the sense that nobody talked about them... but the commandments themselves are found in Scripture before his time. In the Hebrew... the root for the word new (in Jer. 31:31) is the word we find translated as "new" with "new moon." But when the moon comes around every month, is it a different moon or the same one that is always there? The latter... that is RENEWING it's cycle. That same word is being used as an adjective to describe the covenant. So it translates as "new" but is related to something that was called "Everlasting." The covenant is EVERLASTING (Psalms 105:8-10) and if God says it is everlasting, then is our theology is at odds with that, WE need to change, we don't make the Word change. Respectfully....

 

[Ken Rank]

Hit "reply" but then under the end of my post... after the final time you see QUOTE.... write below that.

 

[sparow]

It would be helpful if you hit "reply" to the posts you want to comment on or use @ and then the users name to tag them. Otherwise, we don't know when you have commented and nobody has time to read every post.

To address your points... there are many things that are NEW in the "new covenant" and you picked up on some. However, some you picked are not new. A new Kingdom? For example, there are two priesthoods. One is the Levitical and serves Israel... the other IS ISRAEL and serves the nations. The latter isn't new, how can the "Order of Melchizedek" be "new" when Abraham tied to this "priest" in Genesis? So it isn't new, not at all.... but our functioning within it is. To add to your picks... we have the Torah, the Law, literally "the instructions" of God. They were placed on stone (in writing by man) and they are being moved to the mind and heart by God. The latter is NEW but the Torah itself is not.

The words mean what they mean sparow, and the hard part is just getting our own bias to back off and let it say what is says. IN EVERY CASE but once in the NT, when you see "new covenant" you will find the word kainos. The one time you find nehos with covenant, the context is dealing with taking the Law from stone to the heart. You start looking around... Yeshua says, "I give you two NEW commandments," but the commandments he gives are in the Torah. Loving God and neighbor were not new at all, perhaps the depth (intent, spirit) behind them is new in the sense that nobody talked about them... but the commandments themselves are found in Scripture before his time. In the Hebrew... the root for the word new (in Jer. 31:31) is the word we find translated as "new" with "new moon." But when the moon comes around every month, is it a different moon or the same one that is always there? The latter... that is RENEWING it's cycle. That same word is being used as an adjective to describe the covenant. So it translates as "new" but is related to something that was called "Everlasting." The covenant is EVERLASTING (Psalms 105:8-10) and if God says it is everlasting, then is our theology is at odds with that, WE need to change, we don't make the Word change. Respectfully....

Fortunately we are not all computer literate; if I remember correctly the post I replied to I received by email but I couldn't find it on the thread.

I can see the error you are making, I'll address that later. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun; I believe Solomon; Solomon knew that each new baby is new; but no two babies are the same; what does this mean, that with each new baby God changes his image or that there are as many gods as there have been babies and no baby is new at all.

I believe you miss the Jewish semantics associated with having the Law written on our hearts and minds and that Jeremiah mentioned and that Jeremiah meant nothing different to what David meant in the Psalms:

Psalm 37:31 (NKJV)
31 The law of his God is in his heart; None of his steps shall slide.

Psalm 40:8 (NKJV)
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart."

Psalm 119:34 (NKJV)
34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep Your law; Indeed, I shall observe it with my whole heart.

Isaiah 51:7 (NKJV)
7 "Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, You people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, Nor be afraid of their insults.


If the new covenant is having the Law written on ones heart then the new covenant is not different to the old in that regard.

Words mean what they mean? The biblical languages are declared dead by men an I understand what they mean, but we still depend on men like Strong to tell us what Biblical words mean, and they could be wrong. Human languages always have characteristics in common, and one is that words do not have specific meanings; noticeable today is jargon (not necessarily a new concept) where words are given precise meanings; which cause a problem because most people continue to use the words in the old way; Dictionaries give most common usage of words, excluding less common usages, not precise meanings; the user of a word determines the usage on any occasion; so when reading scripture it is important to determine what God means, not what words mean.

Having the Law written on our heart means having a love for the Law; the fictional new covenant that most subscribe involve abrogating the Law, not loving it.

 

[Ken Rank]

Fortunately we are not all computer literate; if I remember correctly the post I replied to I received by email but I couldn't find it on the thread.

I know, that is why I took the time to share how to reply properly. I wasn't trying to be anything but nice.

I can see the error you are making, I'll address that later. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun; I believe Solomon; Solomon knew that each new baby is new; but no two babies are the same; what does this mean, that with each new baby God changes his image or that there are as many gods as there have been babies and no baby is new at all.

I believe you miss the Jewish semantics associated with having the Law written on our hearts and minds and that Jeremiah mentioned and that Jeremiah meant nothing different to what David meant in the Psalms:

Psalm 37:31 (NKJV)
31 The law of his God is in his heart; None of his steps shall slide.

Psalm 40:8 (NKJV)
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart."

Psalm 119:34 (NKJV)
34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep Your law; Indeed, I shall observe it with my whole heart.

Isaiah 51:7 (NKJV)
7 "Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, You people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, Nor be afraid of their insults.


If the new covenant is having the Law written on ones heart then the new covenant is not different to the old in that regard.

Words mean what they mean? The biblical languages are declared dead by men an I understand what they mean, but we still depend on men like Strong to tell us what Biblical words mean, and they could be wrong. Human languages always have characteristics in common, and one is that words do not have specific meanings; noticeable today is jargon (not necessarily a new concept) where words are given precise meanings; which cause a problem because most people continue to use the words in the old way; Dictionaries give most common usage of words, excluding less common usages, not precise meanings; the user of a word determines the usage on any occasion; so when reading scripture it is important to determine what God means, not what words mean.

Having the Law written on our heart means having a love for the Law; the fictional new covenant that most subscribe involve abrogating the Law, not loving it.

I hate when people say you are wrong or in error BEFORE they give a "brother" a chance to explain. The Torah was commanded to be kept on the heart by Israel, in other words, God desired MAN to keep it on the heart. But because man can't do that 24/7/365 without falling short at some point... the major part of the perfecting process that will occur when messiah returns is God Himself writing the law on our mind and hearts. I actually believe it will become part of our DNA when HE does it... which is why He does it... we are not capable of accomplishing that. If we were, we didn't need Yeshua.

 

[Big Drew]

Give a brother a chance. LOL

 

[sparow]

I know, that is why I took the time to share how to reply properly. I wasn't trying to be anything but nice.



I hate when people say you are wrong or in error BEFORE they give a "brother" a chance to explain. The Torah was commanded to be kept on the heart by Israel, in other words, God desired MAN to keep it on the heart. But because man can't do that 24/7/365 without falling short at some point... the major part of the perfecting process that will occur when messiah returns is God Himself writing the law on our mind and hearts. I actually believe it will become part of our DNA when HE does it... which is why He does it... we are not capable of accomplishing that. If we were, we didn't need Yeshua.

God still expects something from us; we will still be judged by the life we live; our form will be the same as His, whatever that will be; whatever Yeshua is doing it began with Adam.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Said from your own bias, you have no proof of that statement.

Scripture says God's word is true and it teaches to test what prophets teach against it. It says Jesus is the head of the Church and he guides it in truth. How can these be workable guides if there was no truth anywhere on the most important part of Christianity. And where is the most important part of Christianity taught, in the four Gospels. You should note that there is no text of Jesus' words in the original language he spoke. The gospels are all translations of what Jesus said. This means the most basic essentials of salvation have been protected by God to be true despite every language that it is read in is a translation.

Also note it was Jesus' command to go out to the whole world to teach his commands. This is an endorsement of translations to every language in order to facilitate that command.

Certainly there are some translations with differences, but if read in entirety, the important message of salvation will come through in any translation.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Galatians 2:5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Ephesians 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Ephesians 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And the FACT that I can take two different translations and show you two entirely different paths based on how certain things are translated means sometimes things getting lost in translation... is a work of the Adversary.

I'd like to see this FACT you claim.

 

[Ken Rank]

God still expects something from us; we will still be judged by the life we live; our form will be the same as His, whatever that will be; whatever Yeshua is doing it began with Adam.

I don't understand the context of this response. But do you think I don't agree with you or something?

By the way, it actually began before Adam when we consider Revelation 13:8.

 

[Ken Rank]

I'd like to see this FACT you claim.

Have you ever compared one of the modern paraphrases and compared them to a literal translation? I can list examples all day and I mean it... but here are two just that come to mind.

Mark 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
In the verse above, the "In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean" is NOT in the Greek. It was added by the translator because of his anomian bias.

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

The above is from the NKJV, below is the same verses in the NIV:

Col 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

If you'll notice the NKJV is present tense, these things ARE a shadow of things TO COME. The NIV adds the word "were" which is not present in the Greek, to show their bias against the idea that anything in the OT might be relevant today.

Like I said, I honestly can list off hundreds of examples but most don't feel comfortable having this discussion.

 

[sparow]

I don't understand the context of this response. But do you think I don't agree with you or something?

By the way, it actually began before Adam when we consider Revelation 13:8.

It is my conclusion that the creation of the kingdom of God began with Adam; what happened before Adam isn't really known.

I am mystified as to why you think Rev 13:8 refers to before Adam; was there a need for a Lamb of God before Adam, and isn't Adam the foundation.

 

[Ken Rank]

It is my conclusion that the creation of the kingdom of God began with Adam; what happened before Adam isn't really known.

I am mystified as to why you think Rev 13:8 refers to before Adam; was there a need for a Lamb of God before Adam, and isn't Adam the foundation.

Doesn't matter what I think... that verse SAYS there was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The word for "from" in that verse is dealing with separation, divisions.... so we are truly looking at a lamb slain from the divisions of creation (i.e. day 1, day 2, day 3, etc. and all they represent in terms of what was done on those days). So... the verse is saying that, at least in God's mind... even before Adam was created there was a sacrifice. I can tell you what I am all but certain it is for.... but that is for another thread and it won't be accepted anyway. Peace!