Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[Frogster]

Yea. These men do not have to be circumcised and keep the Torah to get saved. All they have to is accept Yeshua as Messiah. Now, they need to stop fornicating, polluting themselves with idols, eating blood and eating animals that are strangled. Then, they can come learn the Torah in the synagogue on the Sabbath.

It is interesting that two dietary laws were immediately required for attendance at the synagogue.

They were not told to go into the synagouges, paul would not want them under Jewish influence, he just went to jerusalem to ward off jewish influence. The synagoue leaders would be hostile towards the gentile Christians.

 

[Frogster]

Yes but I don't see MJ's walking around and people getting healed in their shadow like with Peter either.

true.

 

[Frogster]

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?

well gosh, is all of he torah written on hearts? in one breath you say the new cov had not come yet, as you then say the laws are being written on hearts you are saying 2 things here.

 

[Netzari777]

Annulled, made void, it's really all the same thing. See, ya, point being it's gone, obsolete. If you are not requiring much to separate the Old Covenant from the New Covenant than mosaic law is a small, teenie principal.

The requirement that the high priest be a Levite is what is made void by the fact that Yeshua was a Judean. That is what the entire chapter is talking about. CONTEXT!

What is the Old Covenant and what is the New Covenant?

The new covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah. There are no Gentiles mentioned. Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8

 

[Frogster]

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.

the cross was the stumbling block, because one came to Christ without the law.

11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Isn't that the problem? That the Israelite's FAILED to obey the covenant? How many times did God pour out His wrath on the Israelite's. How many times were they made slaves and removed from their own lands? And God let that happen to them, because they disobeyed.

There were blessings available, but Israel never got many of those. The Old Covenant definately has nothing on the New Covenant. Israel is still in the middle of wars because they disobeyed God.

Israel does not make your case.

It has nothing to do with what Israel was able or not able to do.

Which of those blessings has God thrown out in the new?

PS, you've got a different name but I know who you are

 

[Frogster]

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).

yep, weak and usless too.

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness

 

[ToBeLoved]

The requirement that the high priest be a Levite is what is made void by the fact that Yeshua was a Judean. That is what the entire chapter is talking about. CONTEXT!

What is the Old Covenant and what is the New Covenant?

The new covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah. There are no Gentiles mentioned. Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8

It really doesn't matter anyway because mosaic law is gone. A blast from the past. Void and bye, bye. So I think we can move past that one.

 

[Frogster]

Not another accuser....The law said both had to be stoned so where was the man she was committing adultry with?

believe me, the pharisees knew that, so for them to want death, the man was known.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It has nothing to do with what Israel was able or not able to do.

Which of those blessings has God thrown out in the new?

PS, you've changed your name but I know who you are

Is Israel being blessed, even now? Seems they are all in the middle of wars.

P.S. I kept very close to the same name so people would know.

 

[Frogster]

The requirement that the high priest be a Levite is what is made void by the fact that Yeshua was a Judean. That is what the entire chapter is talking about. CONTEXT!

What is the Old Covenant and what is the New Covenant?

The new covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah. There are no Gentiles mentioned. Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8

Paul was a new cov minister, and if what your saying is right, which it's not, then you are saying only Jews can go behind the curtain of chapter 10, and only Jews have sin remission which only came via the new cov.

 

[Frogster]

It has nothing to do with what Israel was able or not able to do.

Which of those blessings has God thrown out in the new?

PS, you've got a different name but I know who you are

blessing are not earned, the blessing of Abraham was the Spirit.

3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirite]">[e] through faith

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Is Israel being blessed, even now? Seems they are all in the middle of wars.

P.S. I kept very close to the same name so people would know.

We're not talking about Israel, we're talking about the New Covenant. Which of the blessings in the Old Covenant (Deut 28) has God thrown out?

 

[Frogster]

The ONE Commandment to believe on the Name of his Son does not replace the remainder of the Commandments. If we keep them we dwell in him. The devil believes in the Name of Yeshua. Making Him Lord is an entirely different matter. A servant does what his Master says. Matthew 5:19

Revelation 22:14 Those that do his Commandments have the right to the tree of life.

John 5:24, he who BELIEVES, is not condemned, and had ALREADY passed from death to life.


24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

 

[Frogster]

Is Israel being blessed, even now? Seems they are all in the middle of wars.

P.S. I kept very close to the same name so people would know.

they are under the curse of the law, gal 3:10.

 

[Frogster]

We're not talking about Israel, we're talking about the New Covenant. Which of the blessings in the Old Covenant (Deut 28) has God thrown out?

you can't have the blessings without the curses.

 

[Frogster]

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).

Preach it bro!

 

[Frogster]

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 why did Jesus equate himself with one who broke the law on Sabbath?


Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

 

[ToBeLoved]

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).

Wonderful verses Coffee.

" 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)

I love to read the text in the Word. Glory to God for giving us the NEW and EVERLASTING Covenant!

 

[Frogster]

"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.

There is no proof of that in Acts 11, and besides, paul called himself a Christian in Acts 26, and Peter called the church Christians in 1 Peter 4, and it was not derogatory in either passage.