Messiah and the Covenant

[Yada Yah]

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

 

[tzadik]

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Great questions. Look forward to this discussion!

FWIW, I have searched and searched and can find ZERO evidence that Messiah EVER denounced or even 'changed' the Torah...

 

[Yada Yah]

Great questions. Look forward to this discussion!

FWIW, I have searched and searched and can find ZERO evidence that Messiah EVER denounced or even 'changed' the Torah...

It is great to have you in on the discussion Tsadik.

While my examination of Messiah's words has given me the same results, I will add that I did find His condmenation on religious leaders of His day, was not for promoting Yah's Torah teachings, but rather was for burdening His people with traditions and teachings that obscured them from relationally knowing (yada) God (Yah).

“Then Yahshua spoke to the large crowds and to His followers and students, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in a position of authority (kathizo- appointed themselves in charge, put themselves in a high position, conferred a kingdom upon themselves) in the important teachings and judgmental seat (kathedra) of Moshe; so then (oun- therefore, however, on the contrary, now and but) all that they convey accordingly (epo- say in regard to the previous subject (in this case the teachings and judgments of Moses)), follow that authored path (hodopoieo- bring forth the author’s cause) and observe, but do not do according to their (poieo me kata- do not be like them, don't conform the their accord, motives, viewpoints, and terms, do not follow or emulate their individual) ideas, deeds or behavior (ergon- business, undertakings, enterprise, acts, mindset, thoughts); for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.” (Mattityahu/Matthew 23:1-7)

Please note again that none of His words is a condemnation of Yah's written Torah instructions, but is of man made rules and traditions.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

 

[Steve Petersen]

Hmm, Sacred Name, Shem Tov Matthew, definite Karaite leanings...

Most people I have encountered with these characteristics are pretty well set in their views. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions.

 

[Yada Yah]

Hmm, Sacred Name, Shem Tov Matthew, definite Karaite leanings...

Most people I have encountered with these characteristics are pretty well set in their views. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions.

Greetings Steve,

I confess that I'm not as versed in the labels you've attributed as you seem to be. Please expand upon what views you anticipate based on them and I'll reply.

As I understand Karaite Judaism to mean accepting the Tanakh as inspired Scripture and more authoritative than other sources of revelation, than this would appear to apply to Messiah as in the passage I cited above.

As for Sacred Names, the God of Yisrael has a name and it is used 7,000 times in the Tanakh and it is not the title LORD, although it is by tradition replaced in every instance in popular translations. Similarly in the earliest NT texts, Greek letter place holders were consistently for significant name's like God's or the Messiah's proper name due to the limitations of the Greek lettering system to vocalize the sounds needed to replicate them into that language. I recognize that most people prefer familiar though errant anglicized replacements or substitute these with titles. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

 

[Clare73]

I was recently offered the opportunity to discuss whether Messiah’s words as recorded by His 1st century eye witness accounts are consistent with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) and or the balance of the other writings regarded as the New Testament. As a new-ish member of this forum, it appears that this has been a much discussed topic, but I hope to examine this anew here.

FWIW, I originally accepted the whole of the OT and NT minus the apocrypha as Scripture, but have more recently upon re-examination come to question the accuracy of much of our popular translations, and more specifically whether Paul claim to speak for Yahweh is credible.

As a start I notice that Messiah supports Yah’s Torah - instructions and regards the Torah, Prophets and Psalms (Tanakh) as valid and enduring Scripture without denouncing any of what was given as a curse to be rejected or an enslaving burden to be avoided in contrast to Paul or Tarsus. Indeed in Messiah advocates Yah’s Torah instructions in a number of places. I ask if anyone can show me at least one a nd hopeful many places where Messiah agrees with Paul that the Yah’s Torah is a curse?

Hopefully this will be a useful start or re-start and lead to a thoughtful discussion.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Hi Yada Yah,

I think I hear a misunderstanding in your question, that the Law itself was a curse.

Dt 27:26; Jer 11:3 - "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
(Gal 3:10)

The Law itself was not a curse, the curse was the penalty for keeping the Law imperfectly (transgression).

That's why Paul states: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse. . .Clearly no one is justified (ed: made righteous before God) by the law. . .Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:10-14)

So nowhere does Scripture state that the law itself was a curse.

Does this clear it up?

Now I would like to ask what you think of Paul.
If his claim to "speak for Jesus" is not credible, why do you think he made it?
Was he lying. . .mistaken. . .misinformed. . .transmitting incorrectly. . .misunderstood. . .insane. . .etc.?

Kind regards,
Clare

 

[Yada Yah]

Hello Clare,

I just lost my attempted post (argh) so will try to recreate my thoughts and post before I lose it again.

Let us look at two of the passages you mention to see if they truly align:

"For (gar) as long as (hosos – as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon – by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under (hupo – influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara – they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): ‘All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos – exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno – continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion – documented record) of the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

"Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth) the words (dabar – the message) of this (zo’t) Towrah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with (‘eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – nation) said (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – affirming, supportive, and verifiable).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse." The second is true: "All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahweh. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy?

As for why Paul did as he did, in truth I can only speculate, but will do so so if you like, as there appears to be clues. As I hinted in the other thread, I see some similarities with Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, who also claimed a post ascension encounter one he called Isa the Christ.

I am curious what you think of Macionism as a promoter of Pauline doctrine within Christianity?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

 

[Clare73]

Hello Clare,

I just lost my attempted post (argh) so will try to recreate my thoughts and post before I lose it again.

Let us look at two of the passages you mention to see if they truly align:

"For (gar) as long as (hosos – as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon – by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under (hupo – influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara – they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): ‘All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos – exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno – continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion – documented record) of the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

"Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth) the words (dabar – the message) of this (zo’t) Towrah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with (‘eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – nation) said (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – affirming, supportive, and verifiable).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse." The second is true: "All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahweh. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy?

As for why Paul did as he did, in truth I can only speculate, but will do so so if you like, as there appears to be clues. As I hinted in the other thread, I see some similarities with Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, who also claimed a post ascension encounter one he called Isa the Christ.

I am curious what you think of Macionism as a promoter of Pauline doctrine within Christianity?

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Hi, Yada Yah,

I just lost one of my posts also. . .so frustrating. . .our keyboards must be connected.

So what is this translation you use in your first translation?
Could we just use the content of the translations that are used today for the NT, and not introduce another issue?
The NT nowhere states that the law itself is a curse.
It states that transgression of it brings a curse.
So have we disposed of a misunderstanding of the NT record in that regard?

And you think Paul was mistaken?
Yet the leaders of the Church, Peter, James and John, the author of the Gospel, agreed his revelation was from Jesus the Christ, with Peter even grouping Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16).
So I think we have the evidence we need that Paul was not mistaken about the source or the content of his revelation, since Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, saw it the same way.

Regarding Macionism, I prefer to keep our discussion to the Scriptures themselves, for that is where the problem is said to be.

So in that regard, we have looked at Mt 5:17-18 ([post=60743834]here[/post] and [post=60744384]here[/post]), where grammatically "until heaven and earth pass away" is the overall time frame of the condition, and "until the law be fulfilled and accomplished" is the condition itself, which has been met,

we've looked at Gal 3:10 ([post=60754109]here[/post]), which does not state that the law is a curse, but that transgression of it brings a curse, and

above, we've looked at the NT record's evidence for Paul's claim that he received revelation from Jesus the Christ, which shows that Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, likewise believed his revelation was from Jesus the Christ.

So have we cleared up anything regarding the NT record of these three?

Kind regards,
Clare

 

[tzadik]

So we have looked at Mt 5:17-18, where the law will not disappear before it is fulfilled and accomplished, which it now is,
and we've looked at Gal 3:10, which does not state that the law is a curse.

Have we cleared up anything in their regard?

Kind regards,
Clare

We certainly have NOT cleared up Matthew 5:17-20...

The word fufilled (plerios) in verse 17 DEFINITELY does not mean "fulfilled" in the sense of a prophetic fulfillment!

I already showed you that MANY things have YET to be fulfilled, in that sense.
There is a WHOLE part two to come.
Yes Messiah fulfilled everything concerning His FIRST COMING, but to suggest that Messiah fulfilled (prophetically) the ENTIRE LAW and the PROPHETS is too far a stretch, and simply not true.

This fact alone disproves your usage of "fulfilled as a prophetic term" in the passage...

Not to mention a whole second condition called "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS"...

 

[Clare73]

We certainly have NOT cleared up Matthew 5:17-20...

The word fufilled (plerios) in verse 17 DEFINITELY does not mean "fulfilled" in the sense of a prophetic fulfillment!

I already showed you that MANY things have YET to be fulfilled, in that sense.
There is a WHOLE part two to come.
Yes Messiah fulfilled everything concerning His FIRST COMING, but to suggest that Messiah fulfilled (prophetically) the ENTIRE LAW and the PROPHETS is too far a stretch, and simply not true.

This fact alone disproves your usage of "fulfilled as a prophetic term" in the passage...

Not to mention a whole second condition called "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS"...

Grammatically, "until the passing of heaven and earth" is the overall time frame of the condition.
The condition itself is "until all is fulfilled and accomplished."

All of that is addressed [post=60743834]here[/post] and [post=60744384]here[/post] regarding its accomplishment, fulfillment and what his words mean.

And much of what you consider future fulfillment is based in uncertain private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy given in riddles (Nu 12:4-6, explained in my third response [post=60746736]here[/post]), which interpretation is not authoritative, but personal.
My discussions of Scripture include only what is certain in Scripture, which private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is not.

 

[Yada Yah]

Hi, Yada Yah,

I just lost one of my posts also. . .so frustrating.

So what is this translation you use in your first translation?
Could we just use the translations that are used today for the NT?
The NT nowhere states that the law itself is a curse.
So have we disposed of a misunderstanding in that regard?

And you think Paul was mistaken?
Yet Peter, James and John, the author of the Gospel, and the leaders of the Church, believed his revelation was from Jesus the Christ.
Peter even groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16).
The NT record indicates that Paul was not mistaken.

Regarding Macionism, I prefer to limit our discussion to the Scriptures themselves, for that is where the perceived problem is.

So we have looked at Mt 5:17-18, where the law will not disappear before it is fulfilled and accomplished, which it now is,
and we've looked at Gal 3:10, which does not state that the law is a curse.

Have we cleared up anything in their regard?

Kind regards,
Clare

Clare you tell me that nowhere does the NT connect God's Torah to a curse. I confess that I'm less certain of this than you, but respect that this is your conclusion and will continue to investigate. Clearly Paul does connect the law and curse such as: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13 NASB). Where do you see Messiah speaking of the curse of God's Torah, for which He would die to free us?

Later in this passage Paul says: For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (Gal 3:21b NASB) Paul's view of the Law having curse connotations, not imparting life or righteousness stands in stark contrast from what David said of God's Torah such as in Psalm 19:7-8: The law [Torah] of the LORD [Yahweh] is perfect, restoring the soul [life]; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (NASB)

For a much more expansive review of how David regards Yah's Torah please carefully read Psalm 119. You find no curse connotations or longing to be freed from it, not an inability to impart or restore life or righteousness. Indeed David's views of God's Torah instructions appears to directly oppose Paul's.

It is true that we have discussed Matt 5:17-18, but I have to tell you that have yet to make a compelling case to me that that it is already complete. By saying that the passing of heaven and earth portion is not grammatically connected to the complete fulfillment of the Torah, does not make it so since Messiah did indeed make that connection. That said I understand that your view requires it to be an irrelevant inclusion rather than a confirming conditional clause in order similarly dismiss God's Torah as also irrelevant. If you can expand on your position on this passage I'm certainly open to reconsidering, but until then it appears a necessary omission in order to support Paul. Again I await some passages from Messiah, especially once risen in which He declares God's Torah to be completely fulfilled and thus irrelevant, despite heaven and earth not yet having passed away.

As for questioning Paul's authority, as I pointed to in the other thread, since Messiah warned His chosen, that even they could be deceived by false prophets speaking in His name, accompanied by signs and wonders, He expressly invalidated those that claimed to have encountered Him in the wilderness, since He would next return as brilliant light visible to the whole world. Messiah did not add an except for Paul of Tarsus clause. This both explains that it was possible that His chosen could be deceived by such a person and if Messiah is correct in the passage, exposes Paul as false given the manner of his claimed encounter.

Consider if someone claimed to you tomorrow to have personally encountered Messiah in isolation, and then proclaimed a new doctrine making void currently established Scripture, how would you determine the validity of their claim? Muhammad made such a claim and in doing so has abrogated the Torah, Prophets, Psalms and NT in favor of Allah's Qur'an convincing many.

Thankfully Yahweh gave instructions by which those who observe His Torah instructions can test and evaluate. FWIW, neither Paul nor Muhammad fare well by the Torah's test, so therefore I have my doubts on their credentials.

I hope that this post wasn't too lengthy, nor combative or unclear

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

 

[tzadik]

Grammatically, "until the passing of heaven and earth" is the overall time frame of the condition.

Actually this is incorrect, and if I'm not mistaken, completely assumed. Your argument would not stand if we were to take Messiah's words literally. (it HAS to be explained away somehow)

Do you believe Luke 16:17 was also "giving a timeframe"?
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." There's no time frame there. It explicitly says,(exactly what it says in 5:18) that NOTHING will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass. No timeframe, but a CONDITION.

And as we see clearly in Revelations 21:1, there WILL be a time that heaven and earth WILL pass away.
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea."

The condition itself is "until all is fulfilled and accomplished."

Again this is simply an assumption on your part, and even this condition has NOT been completed by any means.

All of that is addressed [post=60743834]here[/post] and [post=60744384]here[/post] regarding its accomplishment, fulfillment and what his words mean.

You can't keep putting up links of arguments that have been disproved Clare...
Here I'll let the Word of God disprove the above argument in and of itself...
You say ALL has been accomplished...
Scripture says...

18. "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. (PART 1)
19. "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20. and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, (Beginning PART 2)
21. whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (PART 2 is when ALL WILL be accomplished!!!) EVERYTHING cannot possibly be accomplished until God brings the restoration of ALL THINGS! They're synonymous.

And much of what you consider future fulfillment is based in uncertain private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy given in riddles (Nu 12:4-6, explained in my third response [post=60746736]here[/post]), which interpretation is not authoritative, but personal.

Are you serious? You think Messiah's second coming is a "private interpretation"???

My discussions of Scripture include only what is certain in Scripture, which private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is not.

Question:
Jeremiah 23
5. "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.
6. "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, `The LORD our righteousness.'
Do you believe Messiah WILL reign as KING of the WORLD on the Throne of David?

Zechariah 14
1. Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.
2. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.
3. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.
4. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
Do you believe Messiah will return and stand on the Mount of Olives, just like the Angel also affirmed He would in Acts 1:11?

I hope you believe both facts...seeing that nether of them are "private interpretations".
Messiah IS coming back for some UNFINISHED BUSINESS (aka UN-ACCOMPLISHED BUSINESS, aka TO BE COMPLETED)
The Word of God affirms this...throughout

 

[Clare73]

Clare you tell me that nowhere does the NT connect God's Torah to a curse. I confess that I'm less certain of this than you, but respect that thisis your conclusion and will continue to investigate. Clearly Paul does connect the law and curse such as: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13 NASB). Where do you see Messiah speaking of the curse of God's Torah, for which He would die to free us?

Later in this passage Paul says: For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (Gal 3:21b NASB) Paul's view of the Law having curse connotations, not imparting life or righteousness stands in stark contrast from what David said of God's Torah such as in Psalm 19:7-8: The law [Torah] of the LORD [Yahweh] is perfect, restoring the soul [life]; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (NASB)

For a much more expansive review of how David regards Yah's Torah please carefully read Psalm 119. You find no curse connotations or longing to be freed from it, not an inability to impart or restore life or righteousness. Indeed David's views of God's Torah instructions appears to directly oppose Paul's.

It is true that we have discussed Matt 5:17-18, but I have to tell you that have yet to make a compelling case to me that that it is already complete. By saying that the passing of heaven and earth portion is not grammatically connected to the complete fulfillment of the Torah, does not make it so since Messiah did indeed make that connection. That said I understand that your view requires it to be an irrelevant inclusion rather than a confirming conditional clause in order similarly dismiss God's Torah as also irrelevant. If you can expand on your position on this passage I'm certainly open to reconsidering, but until then it appears a necessary omission in order to support Paul. Again I await some passages from Messiah, especially once risen in which He declares God's Torah to be completely fulfilled and thus irrelevant, despite heaven and earth not yet having passed away.

As for questioning Paul's authority, as I pointed to in the other thread, since Messiah warned His chosen, that even they could be deceived by false prophets speaking in His name, accompanied by signs and wonders, He expressly invalidated those that claimed to have encountered Him in the wilderness, since He would next return as brilliant light visible to the whole world. Messiah did not add an except for Paul of Tarsus clause. This both explains that it was possible that His chosen could be deceived by such a person and if Messiah is correct in the passage, exposes Paul as false given the manner of his claimed encounter.

Consider if someone claimed to you tomorrow to have personally encountered Messiah in isolation, and then proclaimed a new doctrine making void currently established Scripture, how would you determine the validity of their claim? Muhammad made such a claim and in doing so has abrogated the Torah, Prophets, Psalms and NT in favor of Allah's Qur'an convincing many.

Thankfully Yahweh gave instructions by which those who observe His Torah instructions can test and evaluate. FWIW, neither Paul nor Muhammad fare well by the Torah's test, so therefore I have my doubts on their credentials.

I hope that this post wasn't too lengthy, nor combative or unclear

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

Hi, Yada Yah,

Thanks for your full response, and I do appreciate your not being combative. Also at this point you are clear.

There seems to have been some confusion.

Curse of the Law: My purpose was to show that the NT does connect the Law to a curse, as Dt 27:26 connects it to a curse: "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."
And that is what Christ believed, right?

I showed that the Law itself was not a curse, but rather transgression of it was a curse.
The Law itself was righteous and holy.
Are you having trouble with the distinction?

Paul's revelations: Jesus did not reveal everything to the apostles while he was on earth.
He subsequently revealed much to Paul, which Peter, James and John, the writer of the gospel, who were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, believed was from Jesus Christ.
Peter even grouped Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:6), which testifies to their origin.

Fulfillment of the Law: Jesus said two things in Mt 5:17-18:
1) he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets
2) until heaven and earth passed away, the Law (only) would not pass away until it was fulfilled.

As shown [post=60743834]here[/post], he has fulfilled the Law, and that fact is corroborated by its setting aside in the letter to the Christian Hebrews, where the Levitical priesthood in the order of Aaron, on which it was based, has been replaced with the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, with an eternal high priest, Christ, in fulfillment of the prophecy in Ps 110:4.

And because the priesthood of Aaron has been changed, the Mosaic Law based on it must be changed to the law based on the priesthood of Melchizedek, which is the law of Christ (Heb 9:10; Jas 2:8; Gal 6:2, 1Co 9:21; Ro 13:8-10). That is not "my view," that is the Son's revelation in the NT Word of God at Heb 7:11-12, 17-19, 8:7-8, 13.
So "compelling" here would be in the eye of the beholder's disposition, don't you think?

I think the issue here is not the NT record, nor its lack of evidence, but unbelief of the record and its evidence, which you have already acknowledged. And I understand that. I am not addressing belief/unbelief, I am simply addressing what the NT record states and shows. I have done that in three areas:

• Mt 5:17-18, where "until heaven and earth passes" is the overall time frame of the condition itself, "until all is fulfilled and accomplished." It is a promise and statement of certainty regarding the Law's endurance until its fulfillment is accomplished. That it is fulfilled is corroborated in its setting aside in the NT letter to the Christian Hebrews, chps 7 & 8. The fulfillment of the Law is not conditioned on the fulfillment of the prophecies.
• Gal 3:10, where the transgression of the Law is the curse (Dt 27:26), the Law itself is not a curse; and
• Paul's revelation and authority were believed by Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, to have come from Christ, with Peter even grouping Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), which testifies to their origin.

So is there anything else in the NT record that you find contradictory to the rest of Scripture which you would like to examine?

Kind regards,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Actually this is incorrect, and if I'm not mistaken, completely assumed. Your argument would not stand if we were to take Messiah's words literally. (it HAS to be explained away somehow)

Do you believe Luke 16:17 was also "giving a timeframe"?
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." There's no time frame there. It explicitly says,(exactly what it says in 5:18) that NOTHING will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass. No timeframe, but a CONDITION.

And as we see clearly in Revelations 21:1, there WILL be a time that heaven and earth WILL pass away.
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea."

Again this is simply an assumption on your part, and even this condition has NOT been completed by any means.

You can't keep putting up links of arguments that have been disproved Clare...
Here I'll let the Word of God disprove the above argument in and of itself...
You say ALL has been accomplished...
Scripture says...

18. "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. (PART 1)
19. "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20. and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, (Beginning PART 2)
21. whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (PART 2 is when ALL WILL be accomplished!!!) EVERYTHING cannot possibly be accomplished until God brings the restoration of ALL THINGS! They're synonymous.

Are you serious? You think Messiah's second coming is a "private interpretation"???


Question:
Jeremiah 23
5. "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.
6. "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, `The LORD our righteousness.'
Do you believe Messiah WILL reign as KING of the WORLD on the Throne of David?

Zechariah 14
1. Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.
2. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.
3. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.
4. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
Do you believe Messiah will return and stand on the Mount of Olives, just like the Angel also affirmed He would in Acts 1:11?

I hope you believe both facts...seeing that nether of them are "private interpretations".
Messiah IS coming back for some UNFINISHED BUSINESS (aka UN-ACCOMPLISHED BUSINESS, aka TO BE COMPLETED)
The Word of God affirms this...throughout

1) That the Law will pass away when it's accomplishment is fulfilled is corroborated by the letter to the Christian Jews in Heb 7 & 8, where it is revealed that the Law was set aside because the Levitical priesthood in the order of Aaron on which it was based was set aside with the establishment of the priesthood in the order of Melchezedek, with Christ as its eternal high priest, in fulfillment of the prohecy in Ps 110:4. And the new priesthood is based on new law (Heb 7:11-12), the law of Christ (1Co 9:20-21; Gal 6:2; Jas 2:8; Ro 13:8-10), not the law of Moses.
You either believe the NT Word of God, or you don't. But what it states is clear, starting with the superiority of the Son's revelation over the revelation of the prophets of old (Heb 1:1-4) because it completes the incomplete revelation of the former prophets, and is the light in which the former revelation is now to be understood.

2) Messiah's second coming is not a matter of the Mosaic Law, which has been fulfilled and set aside.
The subject here is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, not the fulfillment of prophecies. Jesus said it was the Law that would not disappear until it was fulfilled.

None of what has been examined above regarding the fulfillment of the Mosaic law has been disproven.

3) And finally, in my Bible Ac 1:11 makes no reference to the Mount of Olives.

 

[ananda]

1) That the Law will pass away when it's accomplishment is fulfilled is corroborated by the letter to the Christian Jews in Heb 7 & 8, where it is revealed that the Law was set aside ... You either believe the NT Word of God, or you don't. But what it states is clear, starting with the superiority of the Son's revelation over the revelation of the prophets of old (Heb 1:1-4) because it completes the incomplete revelation of the former prophets, and is the light in which the former revelation is now to be understood ... 2) Messiah's second coming is not a matter of the Mosaic Law, which has been fulfilled and set aside.

Claire, would you accept the word of a modern-day street preacher who states that he has been appointed by Elohim to preach a new message? Perhaps that the Renewed Covenant is now done away with, and replaced by his brand new message that all ways can bring a man or woman to Elohim? How would you determine the authenticity of his message - if his message was truly from YHWH and Yehoshua Messiah, or not?

 

[ananda]

Great questions. Look forward to this discussion!

FWIW, I have searched and searched and can find ZERO evidence that Messiah EVER denounced or even 'changed' the Torah...

This is true ... one who diminishes Torah is a false prophet (Deu 13:1-5), and Messiah did nothing but uphold Torah and expounded its intricate complexities!

 

[ananda]

I confess that I'm not as versed in the labels you've attributed as you seem to be. Please expand upon what views you anticipate based on them and I'll reply. As I understand Karaite Judaism to mean accepting the Tanakh as inspired Scripture and more authoritative than other sources of revelation, than this would appear to apply to Messiah as in the passage I cited above.

Generally speaking, other Judaisms (e.g. Conservative, Orthodox Judaism, etc.) looks down on Karaite Judaism for rejecting the "Oral Torah/traditions" in preference for the written Tanach. I'm not saying Steve is one of them, of course

As for Sacred Names, the God of Yisrael has a name and it is used 7,000 times in the Tanakh and it is not the title LORD, although it is by tradition replaced in every instance in popular translations.

Praise YHWH for His Name! It should neither be hidden nor substituted ... cf Ex 3:15, Ex 9:16, Deu 12:3,4, Isa 12:4, Isa 64:1,2, Isa 65:11, Jer 10:25, Jer 23:27, Eze 39:7, Psa 44:20, Psa 105:1,3.

 

[Yada Yah]

Hi, Yada Yah,

Thanks for your full response, and I do appreciate your not being combative. Also at this point you are clear.

There seems to have been some confusion.

Curse of the Law: My purpose was to show that the NT does connect the Law to a curse, as Dt 27:26 connects it to a curse: "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."
And that is what Christ believed, right?

I showed that the Law itself was not a curse, but rather transgression of it was a curse.
The Law itself was righteous and holy.
Are you having trouble with the distinction?

Paul's revelations: Jesus did not reveal everything to the apostles while he was on earth.
He subsequently revealed much to Paul, which Peter, James and John, the writer of the gospel, who were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, believed was from Jesus Christ.
Peter even grouped Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:6), which testifies to their origin.

Fulfillment of the Law: Jesus said two things in Mt 5:17-18:
1) he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets
2) until heaven and earth passed away, the Law (only) would not pass away until it was fulfilled.

As shown [post=60743834]here[/post], he has fulfilled the Law, and that fact is corroborated by its setting aside in the letter to the Christian Hebrews, where the Levitical priesthood in the order of Aaron, on which it was based, has been replaced with the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, with an eternal high priest, Christ, in fulfillment of the prophecy in Ps 110:4.

And because the priesthood of Aaron has been changed, the Mosaic Law based on it must be changed to the law based on the priesthood of Melchizedek, which is the law of Christ (Heb 9:10; Jas 2:8; Gal 6:2, 1Co 9:21; Ro 13:8-10). That is not "my view," that is the Son's revelation in the NT Word of God at Heb 7:11-12, 17-19, 8:7-8, 13.
So "compelling" here would be in the eye of the beholder's disposition, don't you think?

I think the issue here is not the NT record, nor its lack of evidence, but unbelief of the record and its evidence, which you have already acknowledged. And I understand that. I am not addressing belief/unbelief, I am simply addressing what the NT record states and shows. I have done that in three areas:

• Mt 5:17-18, where "until heaven and earth passes" is the overall time frame of the condition itself, "until all is fulfilled and accomplished." It is a promise and statement of certainty regarding the Law's endurance until its fulfillment is accomplished. That it is fulfilled is corroborated in its setting aside in the NT letter to the Christian Hebrews, chps 7 & 8. The fulfillment of the Law is not conditioned on the fulfillment of the prophecies.
• Gal 3:10, where the transgression of the Law is the curse (Dt 27:26), the Law itself is not a curse; and
• Paul's revelation and authority were believed by Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, to have come from Christ, with Peter even grouping Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), which testifies to their origin.

So is there anything else in the NT record that you find contradictory to the rest of Scripture which you would like to examine?

Kind regards,
Clare

Clare my apologies for the delay getting back to you. I truly appreciate your patience in continuing this discussion. You ahve given me much to ponder but feel obliged to reply to questions that you've raised.

Curse of the Torah - Yes not observing God's Torah prescriptions, setting His aside in favor of some other doctrine appears to be the curse spoken of in Deut 27:26. Valuing and observing His Torah prescriptions is in consistent with Messiah's instructions according to Messiah's eyewitness accounts, but not so with Paul and the Pauline doctrine.

Paul's Revelations - So Messiah's own mission and message were insufficient and God required Paul to be the key setter of doctrine in his new religion? I find this very challenging for the reasons I mention before, namely that Paul fits the false prophet warnings in remarkable detail according to Matt: 1) claimed to come in His name, 2) accompanied by signs and wonders, 3) would deceive many - even Messiah's own chosen, 5) but can be disqualified since he would claim to privately privately Messiah, post ascension in the wilderness (road to Damascus, Arabia), because He would next appear like like to the whole world. It greatly troubles me that no one has yet offered a case that plausibly shows Paul to be other than one who matches Messiah's false prophet warning like no other. The best that has been offered is that some of Messiah's chosen dismissed His warning and accepted Paul despite His specific warning, and how they could know better. Maybe it would be worthwhile to see if we find Paul carrying out Messiah's message or not?

Fulfillment of the Law - I think I may finally be better understanding what you've been saying here. You say that not all prophecies in the Tanakh were fulfilled in Messiah's 1st century mission, does not mean that those spoken of in the Torah were so one can remain yet future while the other completed?

If this is correct, as Tzadik mentioned, while Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits and Weeks were completed in 33CE, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles remain as end times events to be completed on their appointed day and not completely fulfilled nor abolished.

A significant problem that I am having with describing Paul, the author of Hebrews or the other epistles authors with the Word of God, is testing the authors of these sources with the standard given in the Torah to determine if the claimant is an authentic prophet, thus speaks the words of God or speaking their own interpretation or understanding.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

 

[Clare73]

Clare my apologies for the delay getting back to you. I truly appreciate your patience in continuing this discussion. You ahve given me much to ponder but feel obliged to reply to questions that you've raised.

Curse of the Torah - Yes not observing God's Torah prescriptions, setting His aside in favor of some other doctrine appears to be the curse spoken of in Deut 27:26. Valuing and observing His Torah prescriptions is in consistent with Messiah's instructions according to Messiah's eyewitness accounts, but not so with Paul and the Pauline doctrine.

God's prohibition was against disobedience, not doctrine.

Actually, Paul is not your real problem.
Your real problem is the writer of Hebrews, who reveals that the Mosaic law has been set aside (Heb 7:18-19)
because the Levitical priesthood in the order of Aaron (Heb 7:11), on which it was based (Heb 7:11), has been set aside (Heb 7:12)
and replaced with the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, and its new eternal high priest, Christ,
in fulfillment of the prophecy of Ps 110:4.

You've got bigger fish to fry than poor ol' Paul, you've got Ps 110:4 on the table.

Paul's Revelations

- So Messiah's own mission and message were insufficient and God required Paul to be the key setter of doctrine in his new religion? I find this very challenging for the reasons I mention before, namely that Paul fits the false prophet warnings in remarkable detail according to Matt: 1) claimed to come in His name, 2) accompanied by signs and wonders, 3) would deceive many - even Messiah's own chosen, 5) but can be disqualified since he would claim to privately privately Messiah, post ascension in the wilderness (road to Damascus, Arabia), because He would next appear like like to the whole world. It greatly troubles me that no one has yet offered a case that plausibly shows Paul to be other than one who matches Messiah's false prophet warning like no other. The best that has been offered is that some of Messiah's chosen dismissed His warning and accepted Paul despite His specific warning, and how they could know better. Maybe it would be worthwhile to see if we find Paul carrying out Messiah's message or not/

Likewise, Paul is not your real problem here either.
Peter, James, and John, the writer of the gospel, who were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, believed Paul's revelations were from Christ.
Peter even groups them with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), which testifies to the origin of Paul's writings.

So you've also got much bigger fish to fry here than poor ol' Paul, you've got Peter, James and John.

Fulfillment of the Law

- I think I may finally be better understanding what you've been saying here. You say that not all prophecies in the Tanakh were fulfilled in Messiah's 1st century mission, does not mean that those spoken of in the Torah were so one can remain yet future while the other completed?

If this is correct, as Tzadik mentioned, while Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits and Weeks were completed in 33CE, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles remain as end times events to be completed on their appointed day and not completely fulfilled nor abolished.

Yes, the Law can be accomplished without all the prophecies being fulfilled. Only the Law will not pass away until it is accomplished.

The NT reveals that the feasts were shadows (which have the form of the person, but are not the reality of the person), whose realities are in Christ, not in some future event outside Christ.

The sacrifices were the shadow of the reality of the atonement in Christ, in his body.
The high priesthood of the order of Aaron was a shadow of the reality of the eternal high priesthood in the order of Melchizedek in Christ, in his person.

The realities which the shadows trace out, are in Christ, not outside him.

A significant problem that I am having with describing Paul, the author of Hebrews or the other epistles authors with the Word of God, is testing the authors of these sources with the standard given in the Torah to determine if the claimant is an authentic prophet, thus speaks the words of God or speaking their own interpretation or understanding.

Respectfully,
-Yada Yah

I understand, but your bigger problem regarding these matters is the testimony of Peter, James and John, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, including Peter grouping Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures," which testifies to the origin of Paul's writings.

That is a most serious obstacle to your view, but then
it is no obstacle at all if you believe that all the apostles were in error.
You simply don't believe the NT Word of God. Case closed. I can understand that.

So I take it we have examined your objections, and reached the end of this discussion.

Again, I appreciate your graciousness in this discussion.

Kind regards,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Claire, would you accept the word of a modern-day street preacher who states that he has been appointed by Elohim to preach a new message? Perhaps that the Renewed Covenant is now done away with, and replaced by his brand new message that all ways can bring a man or woman to Elohim? How would you determine the authenticity of his message - if his message was truly from YHWH and Yehoshua Messiah, or not?

I would want proof of his message from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Oh, wait, they're gone! Then he has no way to prove his message.