Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[Messy]

Well, if you're not there...

Haven't seen those in Holland. The newspapers only report on people healed in churches. If that happens and the Glory of God is manifest there I go visit them.

 

[Netzari777]

Sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4) is not a reference to the law of Moses. Below is a commentary on the verse it is informative and scholarly.

1 John 3:4

As so often, the Apostle emphasises his statement by giving the opposite case, and not the simple opposite, but an expansion of it. Instead of saying ‘every one that hath not this hope’ he says every one that doeth sin. The Authorised Version not only obscures this antithesis by changing ‘every man’ to ‘whosoever’, but also the contrast between ‘doing righteousness’ (1Jn 2:29) and ‘doing sin’ by changing from ‘do’ to ‘commit’. This contrast is all the more marked in the Greek because both words have the article; ‘doeth the righteousness’, ‘doeth the sin’.

transgresseth also the law] This is very unfortunate, destroying the parallelism: Every man that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness. It is imperative to have the same verb in both clauses and also in 1Jn 2:29: to do sin is to do lawlessness, and this is the opposite of to do righteousness. The one marks the children of God, the other the children of the devil. ‘Lawlessness’ both in English and Greek (ἀνομία) means not the privation of law, but the disregard of it: not the having no law, but the acting as if one had none. This was precisely the case with some of the Gnostic teachers: they declared that their superior enlightenment placed them above the moral law; they were neither the better for keeping it nor the worse for breaking it. Sin and lawlessness, says the Apostle, are convertible terms: they are merely different aspects of the same state. And it is in its aspect of disregard of God’s law that sin is seen to be quite irreconcilable with being a child of God and having fellowship with God. See on 1Jn 5:17.

Note that throughout these verses (3–15) Saint John uses the strong expression, ‘Every man that’ and not simply ‘He that.’ It has been suggested that “in each case where this characteristic form of language occurs there is apparently a reference to some who had questioned the application of a general principle in particular cases” (Westcott): comp. 1Jn 2:23; 1Jn 2:29, 1Jn 4:7, 1Jn 5:1; 1Jn 5:4; 1Jn 5:18; 2Jn 1:9.
​

Acting as if there is no Law. That would an accurate description.

 

[Netzari777]

Haven't seen those in Holland. The newspapers only report on people healed in churches. If that happens and the Glory of God is manifest there I go visit them.

So, if it's not in the newspaper, it didn't happen. Good to know.

 

[Messy]

It's funny, I have a Jewish forefather who wrote a book on how he got to know Jesus is the Messiah. The reason He started to look in the Torah for that was that he saw so many Christians living such Godly lives, so maybe they were right.

 

[Messy]

So, if it's not in the newspaper, it didn't happen. Good to know.

Not here, I follow some of them and watch them on youtube but haven't heard it that people heal in their shadow but who knows, I go look. If it happens it must be on Internet.

 

[jiminpa]

He does understand... it just isn't an easy concept to convey when we have 2000 years of looking at a certain people through a particular lens. He is saying that Judaism WITHOUT rabbinic/Pharisaical influence is pure... it is what was given at Sinai, it is simply God's people walking according to God's instructions. Once man begins to chime in and pass decrees and create fences around commandments, SOME things are still in order and some things are not. Yeshua stood against the things that were not, he was NOT against all things within Judaism. If you think that, respectfully, you're wrong. We can show him doing things that appear in the Talmud and not in the bible.

It was living out God's Judaism that incited the pharissees to want him dead. The rabinical teachings and the OT were that at odds with each other. The fact that so many of us calling ourselves Christians don't know that and many even oppose that understanding actually speaks volumes of how far from God's faith we are. I truly believe that if Jesus stepped into most of our churches we too would crucify Him.

 

[Steeno7]

It was living out God's Judaism that incited the pharissees to want him dead. The rabinical teachings and the OT were that at odds with each other. The fact that so many of us calling ourselves Christians don't know that and many even oppose that understanding actually speaks volumes of how far from God's faith we are. I truly believe that if Jesus stepped into most of our churches we too would crucify Him.

Wow, just wow.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[Jesus] accomplished all that the Law required. That is what fulfilling means. In no other literary context would you accept "fulfilling" to mean "nullifying."
...

The holy scriptures are explicit the law of Moses is in fact annulled (Heb 7:18) but the promises to Abraham are not (Gal 3:14,15).

 

[ToBeLoved]

v

The Law gave maximum punishments for offences, i.e., "an eye for an eye." Yeshua was merely pointing out their hypocrisy. After all, the law says that BOTH the man and woman were to be stoned. Where was the man she was with?

Not at all. Jesus, being God and being perfect could not go against what was right and just. So, this scenario you presented about 'where is the man that she was with'? has absolutely no bearing. It was not a story, but an actual event.

I don't see what you say you believe matching up with what you say in these threads. You cannot have perfect righteousness with error. That is impossible.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Acting as if there is no Law. That would an accurate description.

Really?

What do you believe? I hope that your not making jokes about our faith. You are all over the place with your comments and I am loosing any continuance to your logic.

Maybe you do not understand Christianity as well as you think because usually we do not have to refute each statement, but your entire discourse with us has been an inaccurate representation of any Christian faith. All of this is pure theory.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It was living out God's Judaism that incited the pharissees to want him dead. The rabinical teachings and the OT were that at odds with each other. The fact that so many of us calling ourselves Christians don't know that and many even oppose that understanding actually speaks volumes of how far from God's faith we are. I truly believe that if Jesus stepped into most of our churches we too would crucify Him.

What scripture do you have for all of that? This is the most interesting thread I have participated in in quite a while.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So in Jeremiah 31:33-34 we are not talking about God's Torah, we are talking about something else? This in light of Ezekiel 11:19?

Jeremiah's words are "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." To the people of the old covenant these words are a promise of a new covenant and not a reaffirmation of the old covenant which is weak and beggarly (Gal 4:19). The faithful are redeemed under the new covenant in Christ (Gal 4:4,5). Thus the law that is in their inward parts and written in their hearts is the law of God in Christ Jesus. That law is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to love one another as he has loved us (1John 3:22,23).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acting as if there is no Law. That would an accurate description.

There is law, the law of God expressed in his commandments: 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. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
(1 John 3:23-24 KJV)

 

[Messy]

God's glory only comes when there's unity.
http://www.nikirkvoice.org/newman.htm

Hey look what she says:
The enmity between Jew and Gentile was not the commandments, but came because of mutual dislike of each other’s customs.

Be careful of the teachers you choose. One poster in this thread gave a YRL from the United Church of God web site and that group is a continuation of Herbert W Armstrong's erroneous teachings. That is not to say that everything said and written by those in error is of necessity in error but it is wise to be careful about the sources of a teaching as well as the content of the teaching.

Oops

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

What scripture do you have for all of that? This is the most interesting thread I have participated in in quite a while.

Every time Jesus corrected them. He was not attacking their or His own religion He was attacking their living of it. When He healed the lame guy on the Sabbath, He was not breaking Sabbath, He was fulfilling it. Torah says to rest on Sabbath, however, it also says if you see your neighbor needs help and it's the Sabbath you are to help him. Of course the leaders of the Saducees and Pharisees knew this, but they were more concerned about the Rabbinical laws of just "no work whatever", even though Torah does say we are to help our neighbor in need even if on Sabbath.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Every time Jesus corrected them. He was not attacking their or His own religion He was attacking their living of it. When He healed the lame guy on the Sabbath, He was not breaking Sabbath, He was fulfilling it. Torah says to rest on Sabbath, however, it also says if you see your neighbor needs help and it's the Sabbath you are to help him. Of course the leaders of the Saducees and Pharisees knew this, but they were more concerned about the Rabbinical laws of just "no work whatever", even though Torah does say we are to help our neighbor in need even if on Sabbath.

I was replying to someone else about a different topic in my response that you quoted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

God's glory only comes when there's unity.
http://www.nikirkvoice.org/newman.htm
Hey look what she says:

The enmity between Jew and Gentile was not the commandments, but came because of mutual dislike of each other’s customs.​

​

The passage says that the enmity is the law of commandments:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(Ephesians 2:11-18 KJV)
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Every time Jesus corrected them. He was not attacking their or His own religion He was attacking their living of it. When He healed the lame guy on the Sabbath, He was not breaking Sabbath, He was fulfilling it. Torah says to rest on Sabbath, however, it also says if you see your neighbor needs help and it's the Sabbath you are to help him. Of course the leaders of the Saducees and Pharisees knew this, but they were more concerned about the Rabbinical laws of just "no work whatever", even though Torah does say we are to help our neighbor in need even if on Sabbath.

The Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the Pharisees for both their teachings which he called "the commandments of men" and for their practises observing that The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. (Matthew 23:2-7 KJV)

The Lord also said: But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(Matthew 23:8-12 KJV)

Which is a timely warning for today and especially for this topic.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26) not so long after saint Stephen was murdered at the instigation of the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12-15; 7:54-60). The Jewish authorities could hardly have created a worse example and so they gained a bad reputation for themselves.

"Christian" was not a term of endearment though. They did not call themselves that, they were called that by those making fun of them. Much like in the 60's the term "Jesus Freak" was coined by I think some radio personality who was making fun of Christians. It was an insult.

How and when was the word "Christian" first used? The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follwer of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.
​

Peter said, "1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf". Peter was not calling them Christians, he was saying if you're being insulted and suffering because of their inaccurate portrayal of you don't be ashamed, but glorify God in it.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Be careful of the teachers you choose. One poster in this thread gave a URL from the United Church of God web site and that group is a continuation of Herbert W Armstrong's erroneous teachings. That is not to say that everything said and written by those in error is of necessity in error but it is wise to be careful about the sources of a teaching as well as the content of the teaching.

I am careful. Thank you.