Juster on the dangers in the HR movement.

[BukiRob]

This is a false claim.
And does Moses law command death for sin?

And another false claim

Area of concern??? Holy crow! Its FOUNDATIONAL. Just WHO and WHAT do you think Adonai is speaking about in Rev 18

I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;

He is speaking about a church that looks like its loves G-D, has a form of messiah (a twisted perverted one) but is void of holiness, righteousness and is not walking blamelessly. It teaches that it is holy, pure, righteous and is defended by G-d almighty himself. It says that it is rich, lacks nothing and is favored among all on earth...

It is the GENTILE Church that this verse is speaking about. It is (2 Timothy 3) holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

I do not hate or even loath the "church" but to ignore what is going on is folly. There are many sincere believers who attend church. Some churches are better, some worse. But when they reject Torah the are sitting in error, fundamental error. They violate scripture when Adonai declares “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

They teach that from Creation until the death and Resurrection Adonai was consistent in that Torah was HIS way... then it is done away with ?!?

Yet no where, not a single hint even an obscure hint can be found in the Hebrew scriptures about such a thing. Does not scripture declare that Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.

Show me which prophet prophesied about the end of Torah. Such a thing does not exist Yet the GREATEST of all prophets, the Messiah himself declares: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Far too many people ascribe meanings to the word Fulfill that are inaccurate. If you look at the definition of the word fulfill you find: carry out (a task, duty, or role) as required, pledged, or expected.

Yes, it can mean to complete but given the alternative mean to carry out as required, pledged or expected and given the fact that Messiah is an observant JEW. It can ONLY mean this...

It is the heart in rebellion that seeks to stand in rejection of Adonia's requirements. Having Torah done away with placates this rebellious nature it pleases it for it requires NOTHING from us. It feeds the flesh the very thing we are called to put to death. The sin nature HATES this. It HATES Torah it will do anything to get you to accept the Babylonian way... for it does not require any sacrifice from us. Adonia wants the flesh laid upon the alter and we are to sacrifice it. It must die.

This post is full of exagerations. The Church believes and accepts the Torah. The salvation of the world was Made in promise to Abraham. He is the father of us all in Christ.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.[/QUOTE]

I've been walking with the Lord since 1965 Ive been involved in numerous churches all across the US... Ive yet to see on teach that believers are to walk according to Torah.

Get back to me when you can cite examples (other than 7th day Adventists) who teach observe the Sabbath and the Feasts of the Lord.

Instead of saying I am making false claims when you know darn well they arent false, cite examples... or you just like like the petulent 6 year old shouting at a parent no

 

[annier]

I've been walking with the Lord since 1965 Ive been involved in numerous churches all across the US... Ive yet to see on teach that believers are to walk according to Torah.

Get back to me when you can cite examples (other than 7th day Adventists) who teach observe the Sabbath and the Feasts of the Lord.

Torah as I already said, is more than just covenant law given at Sinai by the hand of Moses

Instead of saying I am making false claims when you know darn well they arent false, cite examples... or you just like like the petulent 6 year old shouting at a parent no

Who is shouting?
I cited you scripture which speaks of the promises made to Abraham. The Church accepts and walks in those promises through Christ Jesus. Which promises are also Torah, which Torah is fulfilled to Abraham through us all. So, can you supply examples of the Church denying and rejecting that in Christ we are all the seed of Abraham?

 

[yonah_mishael]

I cited you scripture which speaks of the promises made to Abraham. The Church accepts and walks in those promises through Christ Jesus. Which promises are also Torah, which Torah is fulfilled to Abraham through us all. So, can you supply examples of the Church denying and rejecting that in Christ we are all the seed of Abraham?

In stating this, however, you disagree with Paul, who said that the promise was made to Abraham and that the law (Torah) was added 430 years later through Moses. He argued that the promise was valid for believers, but that the law was simply an addition that was not binding - because the promise was made 430 years before and without the condition of keeping the law. You're basically conflating promise and law, ignoring everything that Paul said.

 

[annier]

In stating this, however, you disagree with Paul, who said that the promise was made to Abraham and that the law (Torah) was added 430 years later through Moses. He argued that the promise was valid for believers, but that the law was simply an addition that was not binding - because the promise was made 430 years before and without the condition of keeping the law. You're basically conflating promise and law, ignoring everything that Paul said.

No, I am not ignoring Paul. It is a matter of What law you are speaking of.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Paul also speaks of the Abrahamic covenant promises as hearing the law.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

 

[yonah_mishael]

No, I am not ignoring Paul. It is a matter of What law you are speaking of.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Paul also speaks of the Abrahamic covenant promises as hearing the law.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

And I guess you just determine what law is in question by your gut feeling and not by context. Is that what I'm to surmise here? Galatians 4.21 is clearly say that the story of Abraham's children is written in the Torah (that is, in the book of Genesis). Indeed, not every "law" Paul mentions is a reference to the Torah, but what he's talking about in Galatians 3 is certainly the Torah, as made clear by his statements that (1) it was given 430 years after the promise to Abraham and (2) it was put into effect by a mediator (Moses).

 

[annier]

And I guess you just determine what law is in question by your gut feeling and not by context. Is that what I'm to surmise here?

Why would you surmise that? Rather I had hoped you would have surmised that indeed Paul speaks of "Torah" more broadly than just the Torah given to the nation of Israel at Sinai. Which the following statement appears to acknowledge, but confusedly also denies.

Galatians 4.21 is clearly say that the story of Abraham's children is written in the Torah (that is, in the book of Genesis). Indeed, not every "law" Paul mentions is a reference to the Torah,

Read what you have written above?
You may as well have said:
Indeed, not every Torah (law) Paul mentions is a reference to the Torah (law).
Rather the broader use of Torah would say:
Indeed not every mention of Torah by Paul is a reference only to the Torah given of the Sinai covenant, through Moses.

but what he's talking about in Galatians 3 is certainly the Torah, as made clear by his statements that (1) it was given 430 years after the promise to Abraham and (2) it was put into effect by a mediator (Moses).

Right. I already mentioned this. However Paul speaks of the former covenant promises not being abolished by the Sinai covenant.

There are other similar issues of context here as well.
This life, vs the next life. Which Torah applies?
This world vs the next world which inheritance does the Church look for in Christ. where is our hope and citizenship?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Why would you surmise that? Rather I had hoped you would have surmised that indeed Paul speaks of "Torah" more broadly than just the Torah given to the nation of Israel at Sinai. Which the following statement appears to acknowledge, but confusedly also denies.

Read what you have written above?
You may as well have said:
Indeed, not every Torah (law) Paul mentions is a reference to the Torah (law).
Rather the broader use of Torah would say:
Indeed not every mention of Torah by Paul is a reference only to the Torah given of the Sinai covenant, through Moses.

Right. I already mentioned this. However Paul speaks of the former covenant promises not being abolished by the Sinai covenant.

There are other similar issues of context here as well.
This life, vs the next life. Which Torah applies?
This world vs the next world which inheritance does the Church look for in Christ. where is our hope and citizenship?

You're essentially saying that the Greek term Paul used, νόμος nomos, has a one-to-one correspondence with the Hebrew term תורה Torah. That's absurd, and it reveals the problem of discussing this with you. The word nomos was far more generic than the word Torah for Greek-speaking Jews of the period. It's same as for us today with the word "law." If someone (even a Jew) is talking about a trial he's watching on television and makes a remark about "the law," he certainly is not talking about the Torah. If the same person is talking about Moses going up on Mt. Sinai and bringing down "the law," he is indeed talking about the Torah. Hebrew has a difference in words (Torah means "instruction" and is very restricted in meaning nowadays, referring to religious law; חוק chok refers to a law that has been passed and is in force; משפט mishpat means "justice" and is the word used for the practice of law in Israel today). Paul didn't have such a wide range of choices as we do today. Why? Because Greek-speaking Jews did not use a transliteration of the word Torah when referring to the Torah. They simply used the word nomos, which also referred to things that were not the Torah.

This doesn't mean that there were different Torahs running around. It just means that the word nomos has a wider range of meaning (a wider semantic range) than the concept of the Torah given from Sinai - or even Torah as practiced by the Jews (that is, the Oral Tradition). It referred to any type of law or fixed custom among any people in the world - or even a "natural law," an explanation of how things work.

 

[annier]

You're essentially saying that the Greek term Paul used, νόμος nomos, has a one-to-one correspondence with the Hebrew term תורה Torah.

No, I have not said that. And if you were to look at my posts, instead of just the prior one you will see where I also spoke about Moses law being additional law which retained prior law. Paul uses the term whole law, in speaking to these things.

That's absurd, and it reveals the problem of discussing this with you. The word nomos was far more generic than the word Torah for Greek-speaking Jews of the period. It's same as for us today with the word "law." If someone (even a Jew) is talking about a trial he's watching on television and makes a remark about "the law," he certainly is not talking about the Torah. If the same person is talking about Moses going up on Mt. Sinai and bringing down "the law," he is indeed talking about the Torah.

Yes, I agree. Paul (as well as Torah) when speaking of Abraham certainly is speaking of law which Abraham kept which was not the whole law, as given to Israel either. As additional law was not given until more than 400 years later.

Hebrew has a difference in words (Torah means "instruction" and is very restricted in meaning nowadays, referring to religious law; חוק chok refers to a law that has been passed and is in force; משפט mishpat means "justice" and is the word used for the practice of law in Israel today). Paul didn't have such a wide range of choices as we do today. Why? Because Greek-speaking Jews did not use a transliteration of the word Torah when referring to the Torah. They simply used the word nomos, which also referred to things that were not the Torah.

This doesn't mean that there were different Torahs running around. It just means that the word nomos has a wider range of meaning (a wider semantic range) than the concept of the Torah given from Sinai - or even Torah as practiced by the Jews (that is, the Oral Tradition). It referred to any type of law or fixed custom among any people in the world - or even a "natural law," an explanation of how things work.

I never said there different torah's running around. The torah of faith, was retained when Levitical torah was established in the covenant given at Sinai. When saying the priests had law they had to follow which no others could do, we are not really talking about different torahs running around. Rather we are talking about torah to distinct entities to perform.

 

[ContraMundum]

Ask ANY Christian on the street. Ask any priest, bishop, patriarch, pope or presbyter. Christians do not keep Torah. The law is dead to them, a curse, a fossilized covenant between God and the Jews. Christians, like Muslims and Hindus, have many similarities with the Jews when it comes to ethics, but that can be said about all religions.

Arguably the Muslims keep more of the Torah than the Christians.

Bring me a barf bag.

I dare say that I have met and personally know more bishops, priests and pastors than most people on the MJ portion of this forum. I have even had dinner with a Patriarch -twice. I haven't met a Roman Pope, but I've met a Coptic one.

None of them think that Christians are relieved from keeping the Law as it applies to them. Not one. I think all this "Christians don't keep the law" rubbish that gets belched out on this forum is just utter lies and slander. Violating a commandment no less! (Typical- the "law keepers" constantly violate the law to defend a Jewish Holiday or two. Repent people!)

Christians don't keep the law as the Jews do- and that, my people, is kosher halacha as far as the real Jews are concerned. Educated, catechised Christians with real traditions and lifestyles are taught to obey the Law of God- the parts that pertain to them. It's not rocket science.

I guarantee that there is more Torah in an Eastern Orthodox/Latin/Western C liturgy and lifestyle than there is in 100 MJ "synagogues". You people just aren't educated enough in your religious "learning" to see it. Where are your priests? Where is your Ner Tamid? Is your centre of worship based on the Temple? Do you have a sanctuary? Is your shewbread holy korban or thrown in the garbage at the end of the service? etc etc.

Observant? Hardly. Show a bit of charity and stop the lashon hara against your neighbour. It's not kosher.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Bring me a barf bag.

I dare say that I have met and personally know more bishops, priests and pastors than most people on the MJ portion of this forum. I have even had dinner with a Patriarch -twice. I haven't met a Roman Pope, but I've met a Coptic one.

None of them think that Christians are relieved from keeping the Law as it applies to them. Not one. I think all this "Christians don't keep the law" rubbish that gets belched out on this forum is just utter lies and slander. Violating a commandment no less! (Typical- the "law keepers" constantly violate the law to defend a Jewish Holiday or two. Repent people!)

Christians don't keep the law as the Jews do- and that, my people, is kosher halacha as far as the real Jews are concerned. Educated, catechised Christians with real traditions and lifestyles are taught to obey the Law of God- the parts that pertain to them. It's not rocket science.

I guarantee that there is more Torah in an Eastern Orthodox/Latin/Western C liturgy and lifestyle than there is in 100 MJ "synagogues". You people just aren't educated enough in your religious "learning" to see it. Where are your priests? Where is your Ner Tamid? Is your centre of worship based on the Temple? Do you have a sanctuary? Is your shewbread holy korban or thrown in the garbage at the end of the service? etc etc.

Observant? Hardly. Show a bit of charity and stop the lashon hara against your neighbour. It's not kosher.

It's not "lashon ha'ra" to say the obvious: Christians generally do not believe the Torah of Mosheh applies to them. They keep their own codes, certainly, but, as an example, they do not keep the Mosaic calendar with its Sabbaths and Moedim such as Yom Kippur. I've never met a Catholic who fasted on Yom Kippur.

Maybe your personal experience is different, but I have not met a Christian who believes the 613 commandments apply to him. In fact most I have discussed the issue with seem to think the Pentateuch is largely human writing, and "Judeo-centric/supremacist".

You'd be surprised how many Christians hold a distinctly low view of the 'Old Testament'.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

It's not "lashon ha'ra" to say the obvious: Christians generally do not believe the Torah of Mosheh applies to them. They keep their own codes, certainly, but, as an example, they do not keep the Mosaic calendar with its Sabbaths and Moedim such as Yom Kippur. I've never met a Catholic who fasted on Yom Kippur.

Maybe your personal experience is different, but I have not met a Christian who believes the 613 commandments apply to him. In fact most I have discussed the issue with seem to think the Pentateuch is largely human writing, and "Judeo-centric/supremacist".

You'd be surprised how many Christians hold a distinctly low view of the 'Old Testament'.

This is true. Most Christians will tell you even the 10 Commandments are nailed to the cross and all they have to obey is the "Royal Law of love."

 

[daq]

This is true. Most Christians will tell you even the 10 Commandments are nailed to the cross and all they have to obey is the "Royal Law of love."

Someone once said the same to a brother and the mother of the brother said to the other in response: "It says he nailed the handwritten decrees to the stake, not to his stake, therefore take up your own stake and do the same, (and read Numbers 5:23 while you are at it)". I laughed while I learned something new from my mother.

 

[ContraMundum]

It's not "lashon ha'ra" to say the obvious: Christians generally do not believe the Torah of Mosheh applies to them. They keep their own codes, certainly, but, as an example, they do not keep the Mosaic calendar with its Sabbaths and Moedim such as Yom Kippur. I've never met a Catholic who fasted on Yom Kippur.

Roman Catholics are not, according to the Torah, bound to fast on Yom Kippur. They do, however, fast and keep a calendar based not on the redemption of Israel, but on the life of Messiah.

I repeat for emphasis- nowhere in the Torah does it say that a) non-Jews are bound by every law and b) that one is justified by keeping the 613.

Maybe your personal experience is different, but I have not met a Christian who believes the 613 commandments apply to him.

Not a single JEW teaches the the 613 apply to him.

Why pick on just the Christians then?

In fact most I have discussed the issue with seem to think the Pentateuch is largely human writing, and "Judeo-centric/supremacist".

You'd be surprised how many Christians hold a distinctly low view of the 'Old Testament'.

I don't know any like that. But then again, I hang with pretty solid types who are true to their traditions.

 

[ContraMundum]

This is true. Most Christians will tell you even the 10 Commandments are nailed to the cross and all they have to obey is the "Royal Law of love."

I challenge you to check out any traditional Christian catechism- you won't find that version of theology anywhere. They all contain references to the 10 commandments and some of them are remarkably accurate in their understanding of the Decalogue- you just have to get into the details.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Roman Catholics are not, according to the Torah, bound to fast on Yom Kippur. They do, however, fast and keep a calendar based not on the redemption of Israel, but on the life of Messiah.

I repeat for emphasis- nowhere in the Torah does it say that a) non-Jews are bound by every law and b) that one is justified by keeping the 613.



Not a single JEW teaches the the 613 apply to him.

Why pick on just the Christians then?



I don't know any like that. But then again, I hang with pretty solid types who are true to their traditions.

Sounds like you are saying that Christians keep Torah by not keeping Torah; since you and they believe it doesn't apply to them, they are keeping "all they need to keep". Which is NOT the same as actually keeping Torah.

As to whether Christians need to or should keep Torah, that's a completely separate issue which I never touched on. I have no idea why you bring it up.

Generally speaking, nobody keeps Torah, except the Jews. Most people would furthermore agree when I say that Muslims keep more Torah than Christians (Jews and Muslims don't eat swine, Christians eat swine.)
In fact in Spain it was once a way of proving you were Christian: since Muslims and Jews didn't eat pork, the way to prove you were a Christian was by eating pork. That test would be equally valid today.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I challenge you to check out any traditional Christian catechism- you won't find that version of theology anywhere. They all contain references to the 10 commandments and some of them are remarkably accurate in their understanding of the Decalogue- you just have to get into the details.

Regardless of "catechism," most Christians as individuals believe the Law, including the 10 Commandments, are abolished, done, nailed to the cross, old covenant.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Annier (she ignored me) - could you name a denomination other than Church of God 7th Day, or 7th Day Baptist that truly teaches adherence to Torah?
In my experience 7th Day Adventists don't fall into the category but are mainstream Christians who go to church on the Sabbath.

 

[annier]

You'd be surprised how many Christians hold a distinctly low view of the 'Old Testament'.

Maybe it is not a low view of the old testament in the way you see and speak of it. Maybe it is the excelling things the Church has in Christ which you are reacting to, do you think? Especially when it comes to the traditional Churches, and their ministration and priesthood. Which excelling glory makes the former to seem to have no glory in comparison?
2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Someone once said the same to a brother and the mother of the brother said to the other in response: "It says he nailed the handwritten decrees to the stake, not to his stake, therefore take up your own stake and do the same, (and read Numbers 5:23 while you are at it)". I laughed while I learned something new from my mother.

ὁ ἀνὴρ πάντα τῇ γυναικὶ εἶπεν. = The man told his wife everything.
ἡ παῖς τὴν μητέρα ἐζήτειν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ. = The girl was looking for her mother in the marketplace.

The article is often used in Greek instead of the possessive pronoun. In fact, often the addition of a possessive pronoun refers us to something that belongs to another person rather than the subject.

ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν ηὗρε τὴν μάχαιραν ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ ἔχοντα. = The man found his son holding his (the son's) knife in his right hand.
ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν ηὗρε τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ ἔχοντα. = The man found his son holding his (the father's) knife in his right hand.

There is nothing truly significant about the lack of a possessive pronoun in a verse like what you just quoted. There is really only one cross to which the handwriting of ordinances is said to have been nailed: that of Jesus. Whether or not you are called to "take up your cross daily" has nothing at all to do with this verse.

 

[ContraMundum]

Sounds like you are saying that Christians keep Torah by not keeping Torah; since you believe it doesn't apply to them, they are keeping "all they need to keep". Which is NOT the same as actually keeping Torah.

Actually, I think MJs are quite confused about the Torah. It's been an ongoing debate on this forum for years and years.

The Torah is really not that complicated. Everyone- Jews, Gentiles, keep the laws that apply to them and no individual can, does or needs to keep all 613 laws.

Furthermore, people keep the laws in the way that they have received. Rabbinic Jews have several ways, Christians have different ways. In some aspects the Christian way of keeping a Torah commandment is older than a Rabbinic way- think about that!

A great author to touch base with on this topic is the late Messianic scholar and leading light Jean-Marie Lustiger.

As to whether Christians need to or should keep Torah, that's a completely separate issue which I never touched on. I have no idea why you bring it up. My comment was: they don't keep Torah. Generally speaking, nobody does, except the Jews.

I bring it up because your insinuation, and the position of many on the far fringes of this discussion is that the Church should be keeping the Torah in the manner that those same certain individuals who hold this position assume.

The impact of this kind of thinking is fraught with potholes and theological confusion. By trying to cram a modern Rabbinic understanding and application of the Torah into a Yeshua flavoured NT paradigm one attempts to shove a square peg into a round hole. It ends up in a world of hurt and mess. It creates a bizarre twist on RT. It strips the true Israel of her distinctions. It ignores the real important questions. It elevates the pilpul of humans above the faith that says the Holy Spirit guides God's people. It re-writes the plain words of the NT and even ignores entire books contained therein. All theology is reduced to a particular version of the laws, and all integrity is measured by adherence to Holy Days and practices often as defined by those who utterly rejected Yeshua and therefore outside of His authority and direction.

By saying "Christians don't keep the law" you are in fact saying that "Christians are unfaithful to God", which to me is flat out slanderous and a comment worthy of a Muslim jihadist. You are also implying that God has abandoned His people to rampant, tyrannical heresy for 2000 years and that only now some Americans with Google and a problem with confirmation bias have it all figured out. I find that a preposterous and unfaithful proposition, and completely against the nature of God Himself.

 

[ContraMundum]

Regardless of "catechism," most Christians as individuals believe the Law, including the 10 Commandments, are abolished, done, nailed to the cross, old covenant.

Nope. I judge a theology by its official documents, not by the failings of its adherents.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Annier (she ignored me) - could you name a denomination other than Church of God 7th Day, or 7th Day Baptist that truly teaches adherence to Torah?
In my experience 7th Day Adventists don't fall into the category but are mainstream Christians who go to church on the Sabbath.

What makes you think just because someone goes to church on Saturday or attempting the laws of kashrut that they are suddenly "teaching adherence to the Torah"? Where in the Torah does it say Gentiles are bound to keep the sign of the Covenant between God and Israel? True Torah adherence would teach that Gentiles are not bound to the Sabbath. Right?

Are you teaching a replacement theology? Israel's distinction is no longer important?

Your question misses the point completely. You need to figure out what "Torah adherence" really means before you launch into fast-food dogma.