Is it possible to keep the law?

[tall73]

You do understand that you don't have to believe in Paul and his writings or any apostles writings in the NT to be a Christian

I realize that this is not your main point in this comment, but if you want to have any chance of having a fruitful discussion here we need to know what you accept as inspired.


Please post which books of the Protestant or Catholic or EO cannon you reject.

Or if it is quicker just tell us the ones you accept.

There is no reason to waste our time responding to details in texts that you reject.

 

[7steps]

The issue the council took up was

a. circumcision
b. keeping the law of Moses....

I agree with your conclusion except for the part about the scripture with Yahshua. We will all have to account for our sins. We will all have to account for what we do and what we don't do. It is just spiritual law. By having Yahshua we are accounted innocent of anything that we don't do properly. Because if anything is to hard he will carry us through it. Werther it is circumcision or otherwise. It does not mean that it did not have to be done.
It is just that if it was a burden you could rest in the fact that you where still saved. And I do hope that Peter was inspired to say that. Because allot of people are going to be in trouble if it was not.

I like your post they are very insightful and I am the first to admit that I am still learning and that am not the greatest writer or the best at presenting my point of view. I don't think I have it all figured out either.

But your view is not the same as other posters here. They believe you have one or the other and not both. That as a former gentile I have to see the Torah as a burden, a yoke, a curse. I am sorry I do not believe that.

The evidence shows that it is a beautiful metaphor for YHWH redemptive plan. Through my life I have learned that doing something helps me understand it far better than just reading it.

I don't believe in the idea that whether you are Jew or gentile the Torah’s precepts need not be followed, so we can ignore it with impunity. I think this has brought allot of paganism into the church. The church tends to have an idea that when in "Rome do as the romans do". So that they can convert people into "chrisitanity" bringing all there paganism with them. I believe this idea proposed by other posters here is why so much paganism can be seen in our churches today. So no I do not believe you have to follow the law in order to be saved, What saves us is Yahshua but that does not mean we ignore it and say it has nothing to teach us, and that if we chose to see the beauty of it then we must not be saved. With out the Torah there would be no way of verifying Yahsua's authority. Or to understand what he did. YHWH went through allot of trouble to show us what his plan was, the least we can do is appreciate it. I don't care if a gentile or a Jew decide to keep observe the Torah (like it really matters if I care or not) my contention is with the unfortunate treatment of the Torah. It is un scriptural.

 

[openhearts]

It was a burden.

Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?


Peter is saying that they were putting God's earlier choice to the test. God's earlier choice was to give the Spirit without circumcision.

Now the pharisee contingent are saying you have to be circumcised to be saved.

They are adding to what God required. That is a burden.

Each step of this learning journey helps me learn new things. Taking on the "yoke" is now something more than I previously thought. Students at that time would study and learn from a particular teacher/rabbi. That rabbi would have their particular way of teaching, living out Torah and instructing the students following him.

Jesus's way is light, His yoke is light, His yoke did not have man's teachings, restrictions or heavyness that they were adding to God's requirements.

Luke 6:40 The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.



Matt 7:28-29 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

-Pam

 

[Frogster]

Post 425, but i seems like you forgot that you did not like my answer.

i read 425, there is not a thing in there, that answers the question, as to why peter called the law a yoke, and how james did not want to burden the gentiles with it. Not a thing in there.

in fact, peter said it would be testing God.

10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

 

[Frogster]

Each step of this learning journey helps me learn new things. Taking on the "yoke" is now something more than I previously thought. Students at that time would study and learn from a particular teacher/rabbi. That rabbi would have their particular way of teaching, living out Torah and instructing the students following him.

Jesus's way is light, His yoke is light, His yoke did not have man's teachings, restrictions or heavyness that they were adding to God's requirements.

Luke 6:40 The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.



Matt 7:28-29 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

-Pam

Peter said..ABLE TO BEAR.... It was talking about the mosaic law, read 15:1 and verse 15:5

 

[Frogster]

I agree with your conclusion except for the part about the scripture with Yahshua. We will all have to account for our sins. We will all have to account for what we do and what we don't do. It is just spiritual law. By having Yahshua we are accounted innocent of anything that we don't do properly. Because if anything is to hard he will carry us through it. Werther it is circumcision or otherwise. It does not mean that it did not have to be done.
It is just that if it was a burden you could rest in the fact that you where still saved. And I do hope that Peter was inspired to say that. Because allot of people are going to be in trouble if it was not.

I like your post they are very insightful and I am the first to admit that I am still learning and that am not the greatest writer or the best at presenting my point of view. I don't think I have it all figured out either.

But your view is not the same as other posters here. They believe you have one or the other and not both. That as a former gentile I have to see the Torah as a burden, a yoke, a curse. I am sorry I do not believe that.

how many died the day they got the law?

The evidence shows that it is a beautiful metaphor for YHWH redemptive plan. Through my life I have learned that doing something helps me understand it far better than just reading it.

I don't believe in the idea that whether you are Jew or gentile the Torah’s precepts need not be followed, so we can ignore it with impunity. I think this has brought allot of paganism into the church. The church tends to have an idea that when in "Rome do as the romans do". So that they can convert people into "chrisitanity" bringing all there paganism with them. I believe this idea proposed by other posters here is why so much paganism can be seen in our churches today. So no I do not believe you have to follow the law in order to be saved, What saves us is Yahshua but that does not mean we ignore it and say it has nothing to teach us, and that if we chose to see the beauty of it then we must not be saved. With out the Torah there would be no way of verifying Yahsua's authority. Or to understand what he did. YHWH went through allot of trouble to show us what his plan was, the least we can do is appreciate it. I don't care if a gentile or a Jew decide to keep observe the Torah (like it really matters if I care or not) my contention is with the unfortunate treatment of the Torah. It is un scriptural.

 

[tall73]

I agree with your conclusion except for the part about the scripture with Yahshua. We will all have to account for our sins. We will all have to account for what we do and what we don't do. It is just spiritual law. By having Yahshua we are accounted innocent of anything that we don't do properly. Because if anything is to hard he will carry us through it. Werther it is circumcision or otherwise. It does not mean that it did not have to be done.
It is just that if it was a burden you could rest in the fact that you where still saved. And I do hope that Peter was inspired to say that. Because allot of people are going to be in trouble if it was not.

I like your post they are very insightful and I am the first to admit that I am still learning and that am not the greatest writer or the best at presenting my point of view. I don't think I have it all figured out either.

But your view is not the same as other posters here. They believe you have one or the other and not both. That as a former gentile I have to see the Torah as a burden, a yoke, a curse. I am sorry I do not believe that.

The evidence shows that it is a beautiful metaphor for YHWH redemptive plan. Through my life I have learned that doing something helps me understand it far better than just reading it.

I don't believe in the idea that whether you are Jew or gentile the Torah’s precepts need not be followed, so we can ignore it with impunity. I think this has brought allot of paganism into the church. The church tends to have an idea that when in "Rome do as the romans do". So that they can convert people into "chrisitanity" bringing all there paganism with them. I believe this idea proposed by other posters here is why so much paganism can be seen in our churches today. So no I do not believe you have to follow the law in order to be saved, What saves us is Yahshua but that does not mean we ignore it and say it has nothing to teach us, and that if we chose to see the beauty of it then we must not be saved. With out the Torah there would be no way of verifying Yahsua's authority. Or to understand what he did. YHWH went through allot of trouble to show us what his plan was, the least we can do is appreciate it. I don't care if a gentile or a Jew decide to keep observe the Torah (like it really matters if I care or not) my contention is with the unfortunate treatment of the Torah. It is un scriptural.

I am all for respecting the Torah as from God.

And if you want to observe parts of it willingly that is fine by me too. I agree that we can learn a lot from it.

I spent the last four or more years studying the Levitical types and their fulfillments for my own reasons. And it has been a wonderful experience.

But I think any honest person is going to say that requiring adult male gentiles to be circumcised was a BURDEN on those gentiles turning to God. It was a needless impediment to evangelism.

Would most gentiles line up to join a movement where the first step is to start cutting on your manly member?

I doubt it. And apparently Peter doubted it too. But if God had required it then that wouldn't matter. It would still need to be done, no matter how uncomfortable. But He did not require it as God showed Peter.

 

[7steps]

I realize that this is not your main point in this comment, but if you want to have any chance of having a fruitful discussion here we need to know what you accept as inspired.


Please post which books of the Protestant or Catholic or EO cannon you reject.

Or if it is quicker just tell us the ones you accept.

There is no reason to waste our time responding to details in texts that you reject.

In reality it does not matter what I believe. I have never claimed to be inspired.
I claim to have a relationship with YHWH. There is no chance in a fruitful discussion have you seen the discussions.

But for what it is worth. I believe that the four eyewitnesses (I was just informed that Luke and Mark where not there. As if that is news to anyone. LOL), and acts are inspired in that they tell the story of Yahshua and how he completed the metaphor perfectly that was delineated in the delineated in the Torah Prophets and Psalms. And revelations because it was dictated from Yahshua's mouth. The rest are commentaries on the Torah, Prophets and Psalms as far as I am concerned. Not necessarily wrong but like any commentary it can be very useful, but not the word of God. This is also hard because I believe that scripture has been tampered with to fit the churches agenda, just as the Torah has been tampered to fit the rabbis agenda. This does not mean I don't believe in scripture I whole heartedly believe in the word of God but I don't believe that because we are after Yahshua that God changed his mind. And I don't believe that God has stopped mans free will in tampering with scripture.

 

[7steps]

I am all for respecting the Torah as from God.

And if you want to observe parts of it willingly that is fine by me too. I agree that we can learn a lot from it.

I spent the last four or more years studying the Levitical types and their fulfillments for my own reasons. And it has been a wonderful experience.

But I think any honest person is going to say that requiring adult male gentiles to be circumcised was a BURDEN on those gentiles turning to God. It was a needless impediment to evangelism.

Would most gentiles line up to join a movement where the first step is to start cutting on your manly member?

I doubt it. And apparently Peter doubted it too. But if God had required it then that wouldn't matter. It would still need to be done, no matter how uncomfortable. But He did not require it as God showed Peter.

Ok. I really have no argument with that. But as proof for what I said in the post read the comment in 446. The people that say I am a law pusher just because I observe the law and see the beauty in it do not have the same sentiment as you. So you are an exception and not the rule. Watch.. if they hold true to form.

 

[7steps]

Torah is Good

 

[from scratch]

Jesus seems to have thought it was:

Luk 24:24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."
Luk 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

OK I should have used the word provided for instead ofpresented.

 

[from scratch]

Your question like always comes from a point of trying to prove that I am wrong. Not because you want to know. Read the Torah and really think about what it is that you are reading. Everything in the Torah was a metaphor for Yashua's redemption.

I am so very sorry that you see it that way. I think it was and is an honest question. I should have asked provided for instead of presented. My apologies.

This is from the first "law" presented in Leviticus by someone that is willing to look at the Torah as a gift not a curse, burden or yoke.


"Burnt offerings predict the Messiah.
‘When any one of you brings an offering to Yahweh, you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock. If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before Yahweh. (Leviticus 1:2-3) The olah, or “burnt offering,” was completely voluntary, an act denoting homage to Yahweh or celebrating His atonement of the worshipper’s sins. Although it was offered of one’s own free will, there were restrictions concerning how it was to be done. The reason, as we shall see, was that Yahshua’s death on Calvary was to be an olah—a voluntary sacrifice that the Messiah would make of Himself, honoring Yahweh, providing atonement and celebrating the freedom it would bring to mankind. First, it had to be a clean animal (as defined by the Mosaic dietary laws). One couldn’t offer up a snake or pig, an act of penance, a sum of money, or even one’s firstborn child. Because it was a picture of the Messiah’s self-sacrifice, this had to involve the spilling of blood: an innocent life had to be given up—its innocence represented by restricting the types of animals that could be used to those that were “clean” for dietary purposes. Yahshua would later bring this metaphor home to roost, declaring that we had to “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood”—that is, assimilate Him into our very lives—in order to be saved.
Second, the olah had to be performed at a specific place: at the tabernacle of meeting. “Then he [that is, the one who brings the offering] shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. He shall kill the bull before Yahweh; and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting.” (Leviticus 1:4-5) Although the tabernacle was portable by design, its function was eventually “set in stone” with the building of the temple, on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. The geography of the crucifixion provides remarkable confirmation of the Torah’s prophetic accuracy. The blood had to be sprinkled “all around the altar.” It would transpire that Yahshua was scourged within an inch of His life in the Tower of Antonia—only a few hundred feet from where the altar stood in the temple. Bulls or oxen were to be sacrificed on the west side of the altar (that is, between the altar and the door of the tabernacle, which faced east—v.3), and sheep on the north side (v.11). And sure enough, the crucifixion site was northwest of the temple mount, at a spot now known as “Gordon’s Calvary,” a rock escarpment tucked in behind Jerusalem’s present day main bus station, a mere seven hundred paces from the temple (not down south at the religion-encrusted Church of the Holy Sepulcher). Here you can still see the “skull’s face” alluded to in John 19:17.
Third, just as the worshipper transferred his guilt to the sacrificial animal by placing his hand upon its head, our atonement is achieved through the transference of our sin to Yahshua. Note that the priest doesn’t slay the olah—that is done by the one who has brought the offering. Each of us is personally responsible for the death of God’s Messiah. Note also that this slaying is done “before Yahweh.” Nothing is hidden from Him."
Ken Powers.

Your antagonism towards the Torah built by the Ignatius, Marcionic and Tertulian thought of the NT is what keeps most from seeing the Torah for what it is. A picture of God's redemption.Sorry that you do not see that but your questions after questions in the assumption that I am ignoring or that you have cornered me in my reasoning is funny.

I ask questions because everything I say is wrong and you don't accept the NT cannon as I understand it.

Now you say I am antagonistic towards the Torah. I would not agree of course. That is based on the promise in Jer 31:31-34 made by God and the testimony of God (Jesus) in the NT found in the following scriptures Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20. My question was and still is what new covenant was Jesus talking about, if it wasn't the one promised in Jeremiah? Also what was finished that Jesus spoke of on the cross according to John?

 

[from scratch]

Oh wow thank you I did not know that about the eye witnesses. Wow you did not understand the conclusion he made. That is weired you use it all the time. The point is that the scripture he quotes clearly states the opposite. SO the author of Galatians is totally wrong. But because it is considered scripture it can not be wrong so our interpretation must be wrong. So lets fit the pieces and say since he was post Yahshua heis conclusion supersedes that of the Torah. Even if he is misquoting it.

I have no idea what you're saying because I can 't connect Gal 3:10 to anything I said or what you present in response to that. Maybe I could draw a parallel between 3:10 and 3:28 with some effort. But if there is no Jew or Gentiles in Christ Jesus, what good is the law? Or are you saying we (or you as the case maybe) are not in Christ Jesus?

 

[from scratch]

When did I clearly state that I reject Christianity? You do understand that you don't have to believe in Paul and his writings or any apostles writings in the NT to be a Christian that you have to believe that you where saved by YHWH trough the ultimate sacrifice of Yahshua the Messiah (Christ). Christian a believer in Christ salvation not in the doctrines of men. I might have clearly stated that I reject what you and some others here define as Christianity. But I am still very much saved by Yahshua's sacrifice.

I guess that you want me to search the thread and quote you. OK that will take some time. I think I can do. I'll see if I can perform or if I have to apologize. It may be tomorrow before I get this accomplished.

 

[7steps]

I guess that you want me to search the thread and quote you. OK that will take some time. I think I can do. I'll see if I can perform or if I have to apologize. It may be tomorrow before I get this accomplished.

SO I scanned my post because I know it is easier for me to do since it is my post and what I came up with that can be misconstrued as me saying that I am not a Christian.

You will pardon me if I tell you that I am not a messianic it is just that your christian forum does not allow me to register without picking a "faith" . But most people can not wrap their heads around the fact that I believe that Yashua is our Saviour and that I am not religious or belong to a religion actually I think that religion can be more of a detriment to your relationship with God than a benefit. Besides christianity I don't really know much about other religions or doctrines. So bringing this down to a doctrinal matter does not change the fact of the beauty of the Torah that most people want to ignore and probably have never searched. By the way it is my understanding and it may be wrong that Messianics do practice the 613 laws set out by Maimoides which I do not put much stock in because I have studied them and don't believe them to be a valid representation of the Torah.
and I could put down How damning is the Christian movement started with the Roman Catholic and it's pagan origins and Pauline Doctrine to the True Salvation of Yahweh by Yahshua? But it would be taken of the forum because I am not a "christian" and this is not the right audience. But I was not trying to really argue any of these points I was trying to show that the Torah is still just as valuable today as ever.

Again that is why I said if by christian you mean someone that believes in Pauline doctrine and the mythology of the church or that the Torah has been abrogated then I guess I am not. If by Christian you mean someone that believes in Christ as the savior you are wrong. . As you can clearly tell I don't consider myself in any religion but I am a believer of Christ being the only way to YHWH. That would have labeled me a "chritian". Sorry I am not Christian enough for you.

 

[7steps]

I am so very sorry that you see it that way. I think it was and is an honest question. I should have asked provided for instead of presented. My apologies.I ask questions because everything I say is wrong and you don't accept the NT cannon as I understand it.

Now you say I am antagonistic towards the Torah. I would not agree of course. That is based on the promise in Jer 31:31-34 made by God and the testimony of God (Jesus) in the NT found in the following scriptures Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20. My question was and still is what new covenant was Jesus talking about, if it wasn't the one promised in Jeremiah? Also what was finished that Jesus spoke of on the cross according to John?

SInce I have answered this question many times maybe someone that can write better than me will help me explain partially my view.

" And what about Christians? We tend to make totally different blunders. Christians all too often assume that since Yahshua fulfilled the Law, it has nothing to teach them. The Torah’s precepts need not be followed, so we can ignore it with impunity. At first glance, passages like this one from Hebrews seem to support that view, but what’s really being said is quite different. “If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.” This is all the further some of us get: the Old Covenant is faulty. “But God himself found fault with the old one when he said: ‘The day will come, says Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt. They did not remain faithful to my covenant, so I turned my back on them, says Yahweh....” We need to ask ourselves, was God surprised, shocked, and dismayed by this development, or is it more likely that He knew precisely what He was doing, unfolding His plan of redemption in stages—like asking Israel to master arithmetic before tackling calculus?


Here is the rest.
The Owner's Manual - 12 - Sacrifices and Offerings

 

[Frogster]

Torah is Good

It was seasonal.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

 

[Frogster]

Maybe we will be able to get a substantial response from another.

Why did Peter give a historical account, that the law was a yoke, as Paul said, and James did not want to burden the Gentiles with the wonderful law.

AAAAAAND, it was testing God.


Acts 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear

Hmmmmmmm.....

 

[prass1]

Abraham is admonished by God in Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws

David is admonished by God when He speaks to Solomon as such:
And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days. (1 Kings 3:14)

Now what do we know about Abraham and David? Well we know that Abraham lied to cover his behind when in Egypt, and we know that David was an adultrer, liar, and a murder. With this being the case, why did God say that they both kept His commandments?

Were the commandments that Abraham kept different from the ones David kept?

The "Law" is obsolete and no longer necessary. It served it's purpose, and that need has passed.

 

[ThomasDa]

The "Law" is obsolete and no longer necessary. It served it's purpose, and that need has passed.

Not according to Jesus. But I'm sure you know better.