Law abolished?

[Perceivence]

Follow the law? You are speaking again in terms of legalism. That is not what Torah is about. Torah is a way of living, you might call holiness or righteousness.

That is precisely what I was talking about. When I say "follow the law" I, like everyone else who knows what that phrase means, refer to following the Torah as the way of life. I speak of doing what the Torah commands one to do, of following its commandments, of following its law.

Did you think God gave the law to us so that we could earn our own salvation like wage earners. Please do not insult the Lord with accusations of petty human behavior.

God gave the Jews the law as a prequel to Jesus. As for its purpose within that purpose, I do not know as yet. Based on what Paul was saying, it sounds as if the Jews thought it was a guideline that would eventually lead to righteousness.

19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

However, that is currently irrelevant in this debate.

Torah is the instruction manual which tells us how to live most successfully as humans, as individuals and in community. Torah is not LAW, or Legalism. It is teachings in righteousness.

What's your defintion of legalism?

Yeshua freed us from the power of satan which our flesh nature so loved and was enslaved to. He set us free from being slaves to the sinful nature so that we could be sons of righteousness. Yeshua died to take away the bill of debts that we had run up by our sinful natures which was being held as a death sentence against us, a debt that we could never pay. He paid it all so that we could start fresh as sons (and daughters). We are adopted by the Holy one through what Messiah did.

If the Temple was still erected today and there were sacrifices for sin, would you believe that those are being sacrificed for your sins?

Don't try to trivialize it in an effort to discredit me. I am not a legalist, and do not practice legalism. I am free in Messiah. Free to follow Him and to be obedient to His word, by my own choice.

And you choose to follow him by following the letter of the law?

The trouble is that some men, once they are redeemed and set free believe that now they are free to sin all they want because the Lord paid the price. This is like crucifying the son of God all over again. I won't do that. I will try to be obedient. Yeshua said, If you love me, then keep my commandments. John says if you say you love the Lord and keep not his commandments then you are a liar and there is no truth in you. What in the world are they saying to you that is so different to what they say to me?

CIF

You tell me.

I am fully aware of Jesus' direct message and the Holy Spirit's message through Paul. I know that Jesus came to fulfill the law, that the law was instituted until Jesus' arrival. I know that Jesus has come, died, been resurrected and has ascended to heaven. Thus, I know that I am no longer under the law.

24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

[Trish1947]

I think this debate will never be settled, except through the word in the New Testament. We either have a New Covenant or we dont. I'm not saying that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, but they have been changed by Christ Himself. And it's by Jesus own words. The Law was so clouded by the Livitical Priesthood they had gotten lost in legalizm that they had no effect on people at all. But Jesus came to sum up the whole Law of God in one commandment. A NEW COMMANDMENT I give unto you "That you love one another". Now the Holy Spirit has come and filled our hearts with Gods love, that flows over unto man. Why is it then written in Hebrews that he came to establish a new way. He changed everything, the priesthood, and the administration of the Law and its meaning.


Hebrews 7:11
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a CHANGE also of the law.

15. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseith another priest (Jesus)
16. Who is made NOT AFTER THE LAW of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Chptr 8 v.13 In that he saieth, A new covenant he hath made the first old, Now that which decayeith and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Chptr 10:15 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit , offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Follow the law? You are speaking again in terms of legalism. That is not what Torah is about. Torah is a way of living, you might call holiness or righteousness. Did you think God gave the law to us so that we could earn our own salvation like wage earners. Please do not insult the Lord with accusations of petty human behavior. Torah is the instruction manual which tells us how to live most successfully as humans, as individuals and in community. Torah is not LAW, or Legalism. It is teachings in righteousness.

Lets look at what Paul says on the matter, if you need references I will gladly post them, but Paul says that righteousness is not obtained by the Law so how can it be teachings of righteousness. He also says that if you follow one part of it you are under all of it. He goes on to say that we are to teach the spirit of the new covenant and not the letter for the letter kills, this is even the new covenant. There is no righteousness found in keeping the law, it is the law of sin and death. In fact Paul states the Law gives sin power in our lives. It is by no means righteousness.

Yeshua freed us from the power of satan which our flesh nature so loved and was enslaved to. He set us free from being slaves to the sinful nature so that we could be sons of righteousness. Yeshua died to take away the bill of debts that we had run up by our sinful natures which was being held as a death sentence against us, a debt that we could never pay. He paid it all so that we could start fresh as sons (and daughters). We are adopted by the Holy one through what Messiah did. Don't try to trivialize it in an effort to discredit me. I am not a legalist, and do not practice legalism. I am free in Messiah. Free to follow Him and to be obedient to His word, by my own choice. The trouble is that some men, once they are redeemed and set free believe that now they are free to sin all they want because the Lord paid the price. This is like crucifying the son of God all over again. I won't do that. I will try to be obedient. Yeshua said, If you love me, then keep my commandments. John says if you say you love the Lord and keep not his commandments then you are a liar and there is no truth in you. What in the world are they saying to you that is so different to what they say to me?

CIF

The commandments Christ told us to keep are the ones he spoke, not the Law in it's giving to Moses. And we are teach the spirit of those and not the letter.

 

[Theophilus7]

Charles, what exactly is it then that you want Christians to do, apart from having the Sabbath at the Jewish time and abstaining from Pork, Christmas, Easter (the later two I don't celebrate anyway)? How far are you prepared to take us? Back into the book of Leviticus? Do we need Priests again? - surely that is what Moses commanded! What about the sacrificial system of the Law? Is that still up and running? Is Jerusalem still the centre of worship, and would the inhabitants mind if a few hundred million Christians descended upon it on a regular basis? I find it strange that you don't demand circumcision - Moses did command it, and the Bible does say that anyone who is circumcised is required to obey the whole law. So why not be circumcised then, if we are required to obey the whole law?

Don't you see that asking Christians to keep the letter of the law would make one great big mess?

 

[flyfishing]

Charles, what exactly is it then that you want Christians to do, apart from having the Sabbath at the Jewish time and abstaining from Pork, Christmas, Easter (the later two I don't celebrate anyway)? How far are you prepared to take us? Back into the book of Leviticus? Do we need Priests again? - surely that is what Moses commanded! What about the sacrificial system of the Law? Is that still up and running? Is Jerusalem still the centre of worship, and would the inhabitants mind if a few hundred million Christians descended upon it on a regular basis? I find it strange that you don't demand circumcision - Moses did command it, and the Bible does say that anyone who is circumcised is required to obey the whole law. So why not be circumcised then, if we are required to obey the whole law?

Don't you see that asking Christians to keep the letter of the law would make one great big mess?

And not make one get an inch closer to heaven but perhaps moves one miles closer to helll

 

[flyfishing]

Flyfishing,

Sorry I can't see to type right now. Somebody shook of the dust from their keyboard and it went into my face.

Shabbat Shalom to you

Charles, I am sorry for offending you.

Peace to you .. Dont know what shabbat means..

 

[oboy]

Hi folks,

I'm somewhat new to Christian Forums, but thought I might add my two cents on this one.

We need to look at the purpose of the Law, why it was given.

1Timothy 1:8-10
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Galatians 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The Law was given to show us our sin (see Romans 7:7). It is a schoolmaster (a teacher) that brings (or leads) us to Christ. When it brings us to Christ, it has done its job. It is finished. We are now the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), therefore the law is "not made for" us (if we are believers in Christ Jesus; aka, saints).

Are we as Christians meant to keep the moral law (the Ten Commandments)? Romans 13:8-10 says, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

The only (Ten) commandment that there is any true question about is #4, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." I know excellent Christians on both sides of the fence on this one. I lean to the side that says that the Sabbath has been abolished, based on Colossians 2:16-17, which says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (I know that there are questions about which "sabbath days" Paul is referring to here, but I believe he is referring to ALL of them.)

(Let's make it a little more practical: If "love is the fulfilling of the law," are you loving your neighbors, even those who disagree with your theology?)

If the Law is made for the lawless and disobedient, and is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and "is perfect, converting the soul" (Psalm 19:7, KJV), and it shows us our sin, why not try using the Ten Commandments the next time you witness to someone. Ask them if they've ever told a lie. What does it make them? (a liar) Have they ever stolen something, regardless of the value? What does it make them? (a thief) Have they ever lusted after someone (see Matthew 5:28)? What does it make them? (an adulterer).

Try it, and watch the Law do its work.

There's my two cents.

cya,
Stephen

 

[TheScottsMen]

CIF:

I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has added alot of stuff to their doctrine. But to say they changed the Sabbath, I disagree. As I posted early in this post that many Christians stated that they worshipped on Sunday, not Saturday. Example again:

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived at the time of the apostles, 30-107 A.D. He, like Polycarp, was a disciple of St. John and one who should know Christian practice among the early Christians as to the sabbath. He wrote, "And after the observance of the sabbath [that the Jews kept], let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all days of the week . . . on which our life sprang up again, and victory over death was obtained in Christ . . . it is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has come to an end.... If any man preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who is circumcised, than to a Judaism from one uncircumcised" (Vol. I, pages 63-82).

30-107 AD this was wrote. Seems kinda early for the Catholic Church to have been the one to change this.

Justin Martyr, a Gentile born near Jacob's well about 110 A.D. writes, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read.... But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead" (Vol. I, Page 186).

110 AD again, way before the Catholic Church. Maybe only 10-20 years removed from the death of John.

 

[flyfishing]

CIF:

I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has added alot of stuff to their doctrine. But to say they changed the Sabbath, I disagree. As I posted early in this post that many Christians stated that they worshipped on Sunday, not Saturday. Example again:

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived at the time of the apostles, 30-107 A.D. He, like Polycarp, was a disciple of St. John and one who should know Christian practice among the early Christians as to the sabbath. He wrote, "And after the observance of the sabbath [that the Jews kept], let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all days of the week . . . on which our life sprang up again, and victory over death was obtained in Christ . . . it is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has come to an end.... If any man preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who is circumcised, than to a Judaism from one uncircumcised" (Vol. I, pages 63-82).

30-107 AD this was wrote. Seems kinda early for the Catholic Church to have been the one to change this.

Justin Martyr, a Gentile born near Jacob's well about 110 A.D. writes, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read.... But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead" (Vol. I, Page 186).

110 AD again, way before the Catholic Church. Maybe only 10-20 years removed from the death of John.

Yup. The historians tell us that the day of the lord john used in rev 1 was indeed the first day of the week... Those historians were btw before constantine and the catholic church..

 

[flyfishing]

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

 

[TheScottsMen]

CIF:

"I've never seen so much church revisionism and fabrication in my life. What you copied and pasted is filled with so much conjecture, fabications and distortions of the truth that it would take months to identify them all"

I suppose FlyFishing account is also fabrication? Maybe we should move the Sunday topic to the thread that FlyFishing started? He has many more quotes regarding the Sunday worship then I do.

http://www.christianforums.com/t95934

 

[Charlesinflorida]

Charles, what exactly is it then that you want Christians to do, apart from having the Sabbath at the Jewish time and abstaining from Pork, Christmas, Easter (the later two I don't celebrate anyway)? How far are you prepared to take us? Back into the book of Leviticus? Do we need Priests again? - surely that is what Moses commanded! What about the sacrificial system of the Law? Is that still up and running? Is Jerusalem still the centre of worship, and would the inhabitants mind if a few hundred million Christians descended upon it on a regular basis? I find it strange that you don't demand circumcision - Moses did command it, and the Bible does say that anyone who is circumcised is required to obey the whole law. So why not be circumcised then, if we are required to obey the whole law?

Don't you see that asking Christians to keep the letter of the law would make one great big mess?

I am curious;why do you not celebrate Christmas and Easter as most christians do?

In answer to your question,"How far would you take us?"

The Tanahk as I have said many times now is for doctrine, reproof, training in righteousness. . .IITim3:16. . .it is not a list of things to do, in order to win your slavaion. We use Tanahk as instructions, lessons to learn what God desires of us. Sacrifices and the levitical preisthood are for this time set aside, however according to the scriptures they will be reinstated during the millenial kingdom. Eze.40-end. Zech 14. . . Keeping the letter of the law is futile in regards to salvation, but essential in taining up in righteousness, for through it we disover Gods will for us, what is right and what is wrong. As Paul said, without he law I would not have know sin. The law does not make us sin, it reveals areas where my actions or thoughts, which are already there, are sin (displeasing to God) and so I am able to see my sin, and repent and ask for Gods mercy through the blood of messiah to cleanse me from that sin, and to build up that area of my life by the spirit so that the desire to sin is removed.

It is not mentioned much by christians but Paul says that yeshua cleansed us from sins of the past.

Ro 3: [24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

This would imply that we are to avoid sins in the future. We are not to continue in our old sinful ways. We are to change. But how do we know where change is needed? Through His word.(Tanahk) II Tim 3:16

The Jews failed to understand that the law was used in this way, to lead us to repentence and to guide us in the direction of holiness. The law does not make us holy, it shows us what holiness is and where we are lacking. We obtain this holiness through faith and surrendering to the working of the Holy spirit.

Ro 9: [30] What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. [31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. [32] Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

They used the law incorrectly, through legalism, rather than as instruction and as guidance to life in the spirit.

Paul also says that the carnal mind is emnity against God beause it is not subject to the law of God. Ro 8 This means also that the spiritual mans mind IS INDEED subject to the law of God. How? by showing me Gods will, my failure to live according to it, and the need to repent and turn my direction toward God. This is where I would take the church, because the church does many things that are contrary to the guidance of God. They have used Gods abundant Grace as license to live in sin, outside of Gods will.This is why the church can not make a sound decision about obvious things like homosexual marriage and a long list of other things that I can not mention because it will be deleted according to rule no. 2 of this forum. The reason that rule no.2 is there is because the operators of this forum do not want to diparage other christians who are still doing these abominations. We are to look the other way and not judge. This forum has a policy of tolerance, toward all religions, and that means that it has set its own standard for what is acceptable, rather than using Gods standard. This oum is not a church so that is OK, but the churches have done pretty much the same things. It can no longer judge righteously, because it has set God standard aside. But Gods word does judge, if we read it. Look how Paul speaks forcully against a man involved in incest, who was part of the hurch. Where did he get that authority to call that sin? For the Torah which specifies laws on mariage, who is a close relative and who is not. Paul used Torah to corect this situation, and it is not metioned as doctrine anywhere else in the NT. He uses the OT as reproof and instructions in righteousness. This is what I advocate.

CIF

 

[Charlesinflorida]

Lets look at what Paul says on the matter, if you need references I will gladly post them, but Paul says that righteousness is not obtained by the Law so how can it be teachings of righteousness. He also says that if you follow one part of it you are under all of it. He goes on to say that we are to teach the spirit of the new covenant and not the letter for the letter kills, this is even the new covenant. There is no righteousness found in keeping the law, it is the law of sin and death. In fact Paul states the Law gives sin power in our lives. It is by no means righteousness.



The commandments Christ told us to keep are the ones he spoke, not the Law in it's giving to Moses. And we are teach the spirit of those and not the letter.

Dear Flesh99,
Forgive me sir for not responding in detail to you post item by item, but you have taken so manty things out of context, or misquoted that I could not spend enough time to address them all. For example Paul did not say that if you keep any law, that you are obligated to keep them all. This would mean that any time you do not kill someone, then you are obligated to keep all the law. As you quoted it, the church has a responsibility to break the law in order to avoid being obligated to it. This really is not what Paul was saying.

Paul says that if you turn away from faith as a means of salvation and take up the legalistic observance of Torah commands in order to become righteous, you would be obligated to keep all the law perfectly to obtain that righteousness. This can not be done, it is futile. We are to keep the law as a guide to living according to Gods will and when we fail, we confess our failure and God forgives us by his grace. So the faith is not in our ability to keep the laws, but rather our faith is in Messiah Yeshua who is faithful to forgive our sins and cleanses us from unrighteousness. The law shows me where I have missed the mark, so that I know to repent.

I would suggest perhaps reading these verses again, but think in terms of legalistic observation being different from keeping your life ordered according to Gods will and using the law to be a guide. Paul makes this distinction, but many have taken their understanding of Paul second hand and miss the finer difference in what he was saying.

CIF

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Dear Flesh99,
Forgive me sir for not responding in detail to you post item by item, but you have taken so manty things out of context, or misquoted that I could not spend enough time to address them all. For example Paul did not say that if you keep any law, that you are obligated to keep them all. This would mean that any time you do not kill someone, then you are obligated to keep all the law. As you quoted it, the church has a responsibility to break the law in order to avoid being obligated to it. This really is not what Paul was saying.

No you have read me entirely wrong. We are two keep the commandments Christ spoke. Love the Lord and love you neighbor. If we follow these will keep all the parts of the law that matter to us as Christians. But we will not keep them because they are parts of the law, we will keep them because we are following Christ's commands to us. I have not taken this out of context, if you follow the law thinking it will lead you to righteousness you are in grave error and subjecting yourself to the whole of the law.

Paul says that if you turn away from faith as a means of salvation and take up the legalistic observance of Torah commands in order to become righteous, you would be obligated to keep all the law perfectly to obtain that righteousness. This can not be done, it is futile. We are to keep the law as a guide to living according to Gods will and when we fail, we confess our failure and God forgives us by his grace. So the faith is not in our ability to keep the laws, but rather our faith is in Messiah Yeshua who is faithful to forgive our sins and cleanses us from unrighteousness. The law shows me where I have missed the mark, so that I know to repent.

The only commandments we are under are the two, can you show me what parts of the law I will break and sin by doing so if I follow those two?

I would suggest perhaps reading these verses again, but think in terms of legalistic observation being different from keeping your life ordered according to Gods will and using the law to be a guide. Paul makes this distinction, but many have taken their understanding of Paul second hand and miss the finer difference in what he was saying.

CIF

There is not a finer difference. We could have nothing but the NT and still follow the commands Christ gave us and have no problems. I am not saying we shouldn't study the OT, but if a man didn't have the OT and followed only what is taught in the NT he would not be in danger of sin or not being saved. You tout the law as rules of righeousness and yet Paul says that following it cannot make you righteous, you will need to show how this is out of context. Do you wear tassles on the corners of your clothes? Do you have a beard with the corners untrimmed? Is getting a tattoo a sin? If you cannot answer yes to each of these you will need to show where a line is drawn that says you can follow some of the law but not all of it.

 

[Charlesinflorida]

No you have read me entirely wrong. We are two keep the commandments Christ spoke. Love the Lord and love you neighbor. If we follow these will keep all the parts of the law that matter to us as Christians. But we will not keep them because they are parts of the law, we will keep them because we are following Christ's commands to us. I have not taken this out of context, if you follow the law thinking it will lead you to righteousness you are in grave error and subjecting yourself to the whole of the law.



The only commandments we are under are the two, can you show me what parts of the law I will break and sin by doing so if I follow those two?

There is not a finer difference. We could have nothing but the NT and still follow the commands Christ gave us and have no problems. I am not saying we shouldn't study the OT, but if a man didn't have the OT and followed only what is taught in the NT he would not be in danger of sin or not being saved. You tout the law as rules of righeousness and yet Paul says that following it cannot make you righteous, you will need to show how this is out of context. Do you wear tassles on the corners of your clothes? Do you have a beard with the corners untrimmed? Is getting a tattoo a sin? If you cannot answer yes to each of these you will need to show where a line is drawn that says you can follow some of the law but not all of it.

1CO 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

Where does Paul get the authority for this judgement?

CIF

 

[Charlesinflorida]

Flesh99,

If two belivers who both love the lord and are faithful to each other and are good citizens never bother their neighbors attend church at every opporitunity, but just happen to be two men, who are married to each other, are they comitting sin? After all they have faith in Jesus and they love God , love one another and love their neighbors and are model citizens. Are they still living within Gods will?

Or what about beastality?

From the New testament would you say these are OK or not?

CIF

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

No they would not be. You miss the point entirely apparently. What did all those people from Adam to Moses do? They didn't have the Law. But as for the sex issues:

1 Cor. 6:9 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

That covers your questions, you cannot marry an animal so sex with an animal would be fornication at the very least. That is all NT.

 

[Theophilus7]

I am curious;why do you not celebrate Christmas and Easter as most christians do?

Better PM me on that one, if you're interested.

In answer to your question,"How far would you take us?"...

Thanks for that. I agree that the Torah is of value in judging moral situations. But what about the other stuff? You apparently don't want us to get back into the sacrificial ceremonies. I'm glad to hear it. But there are other things you think we should be doing, aren't there? Don't you advocate that Christians should keep the feasts? And what about special clothing (eg. Tehillims) and the other 'smells and bells'?

Cheers.

 

[simchat_torah]

And what about special clothing (eg. Tehillims)

Tehillim is the word "psalms" in Hebrew transliteration (see my signature). I think you mean Tefillin, which is the Hebrew transliteration of the Greek "phylactaries"... or the boxes with leather straps that contain the Sh'ma (duet. 6).

shalom,
yafet.

 

[simchat_torah]

What did all those people from Adam to Moses do? They didn't have the Law.

They might not have had it written in stone, but they obviously knew the Torah. Otherwise, how did Noah know what animals were clean and which were unclean?