Mosaic Law binding "forever"?

[Nazaroo]

Only the non-trivial ones are not binding. (E.g., head shaving, circumcision, etc.)

This is outrageous: How come Tqpix gets to have naughty Batman pics in his signature, and I had to take mine down?

"Favouritism that is! Many's the time I lay awake at night dreamin' I could have spanky pics in my sig! Someone must think the sun shines out your..."

"-Quiet you!"

"Oh, right you are Roman Centurion. Won't happen again."

"Shaddup!"

Love Nazaroo

 

[OPAL]

Hi Daniel,

Unlike you, I believe that Paul's epistles are the devinely inspired word of God, without error. If they arn't you may as well though away the book, for he preaches Christ and the Power of the Resurrection the ONLY WAY.

Christians today stop at the cross and look no further. Do you know the exceeding greatness of the Power of the Resurrection?

You as well as most of Christiandom do not see where the law stopped and Righteousness by faith began. I love you Daniel, but you are missing the message and it is only through the revelation that Paul revealed that one can stand without shame before God.

Matthew 22:35-40, "The one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Faith works by love, and there is not one commandment that can be broken where love is AND THAT IS WHO WE ARE.

Before the resurrection it was impossible for the Jew to love their brother because God had seperated them from the Gentile nations. After the resurrection the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile had been broken down. The Gentiles were made their brother and thus we have "love your brother".

I never gave up on God's word. I knew that as his dear child he would reveal the truth from beginning to end. I do not need the Torah, His words are complete in the Bible.

Acts 15:10, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

 

[DanielRB]

Hi Daniel,

Unlike you, I believe that Paul's epistles are the devinely inspired word of God, without error. If they arn't you may as well though away the book, for he preaches Christ and the Power of the Resurrection the ONLY WAY.

Christians today stop at the cross and look no further. Do you know the exceeding greatness of the Power of the Resurrection?

You as well as most of Christiandom do not see where the law stopped and Righteousness by faith began. I love you Daniel, but you are missing the message and it is only through the revelation that Paul revealed that one can stand without shame before God.

Matthew 22:35-40, "The one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Faith works by love, and there is not one commandment that can be broken where love is AND THAT IS WHO WE ARE.

Before the resurrection it was impossible for the Jew to love their brother because God had seperated them from the Gentile nations. After the resurrection the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile had been broken down. The Gentiles were made their brother and thus we have "love your brother".

I never gave up on God's word. I knew that as his dear child he would reveal the truth from beginning to end. I do not need the Torah, His words are complete in the Bible.

Acts 15:10, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Hi Opal,

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I never claimed that Paul's writings were not God's Word. Indeed, I believe that they are.

I just see that there are apparent contradictions (which is not the same thing as real contradictions) between what Paul wrote, and what Jesus said in the gospels, and what Torah itself says, concerning the responsibility we have to obey the law.

I don't believe that there are simplistic answers to harmonize these apparent contradictions. I think that most Bible-believing Christians interpret Paul using the plainest understanding of his words, and that many Messianic Jews (for example--they aren't the only ones) who have more "creative" interpretations of Paul's words in order to harmonize what he said with the plainest interpretation of Jesus' words on the law and the words of the law itself.

In other words: if one uses the "plainest meaning" (given grammatical-historical context) of Torah and Gospel, it seems to suggest that obeying the Mosaic code is still our duty. If one uses "plainest meaning" to intrepret Paul, it seems fairly clear that the obedience to the Mosaic code is not our duty.

There are two ways to resolve this apparent contradiction (and still hold that the Bible is 100% inspired and 100% true): (1) interpret Paul literally (by "literal" I mean the plainest meaning given proper historical and grammatical context), and Torah and the Gospel other than literally; or (2) interpret Torah and the Gospel literally and Paul other than literally.

Most Christians follow (1); but Messianic Jews and (to a certain extent) Seventh-Day Adventists choose (2).

Does that make sense now?

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[OPAL]

Hi again Daniel,

If you cannot hear what the Apostle Paul is saying then I have no hope that you will hear me.

 

[Tishri1]

Opal you seem to take pleasure in twisting people's words and accusing them of having attitudes and opinions that do not exist. If you do this again to one of my posts then I will just ignore you in here...this way you have of trying to put people on the defensive all the time is counter productive

Just curious, as I wondered why in reading Paul's epistles you do not want to or are unable to see RIGHTEOUSNESS by faith.

this couldn't be farther from the Truth

 

[Tishri1]

Hi Daniel, I still think that Yeshua's words are binding and smooth(as opposed to rough) and state the plain truth and I believe it sooooo much that I have to find out the bottom line of all the other verses in the NT that don't jive

We choose a particular point of view--say Paul, or say Moses--and we read the entire Bible in that light. We attempt to re-interpret that which does not quite fit into that pattern, and we do not accept the plainest meaning of certain scriptures, in favor of the plainest meaning of other scriptures.

Maybe I'm rambling now, but I hope you get my point: the Bible does not quite fit into any box--whether that box is Messianic Jewish, Calvanistic, or Roman Catholic. There will always be rough edges. You can hack those rough edges right off if you like--for example, reject Paul (as did the Judaizers) or reject the OT (as did Marcion), or reject the entire NT (as to converts to non-Messianic Judaism). But to be a Bible-believer means that those rough edges will always be with you.

In Christ,

Daniel

If Yeshua said it is one way that's the truth in my book and I will set my theology on his words before any other's

 

[Tishri1]

There are no rough edges. Christ is the fulfilling of the law.

You mentioned the Sabbath day, well the book of Hebrews 3:18, & 4-4 says, "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said. As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise. And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

The believer has entered into the Sabbath. Everyday is the Sabbath to the believer because he has ceased from the works of the law for righteousness.

One cannot compromise the faith. You cannot serve the faith and the law, it is not acceptable.

That verse can't even make sence unless you understand Hebraic Thinking and Hebraic Terminology...."Sabbath" and "Sabbath rest" in this verse is an Idiom for the Millenium (1000 year reign of Jesus) it has NOTHING to do with the LAW or Works of the Law ...come on

 

[Tishri1]

Hi Daniel,

Unlike you, I believe that Paul's epistles are the devinely inspired word of God, without error. If they arn't you may as well though away the book, for he preaches Christ and the Power of the Resurrection the ONLY WAY.

Christians today stop at the cross and look no further. Do you know the exceeding greatness of the Power of the Resurrection?

You as well as most of Christiandom do not see where the law stopped and Righteousness by faith began. I love you Daniel, but you are missing the message and it is only through the revelation that Paul revealed that one can stand without shame before God.

See how you are twisting everyones words in here, this is outrageous Opal, Forget even getting my attention in here, you are causing more problems than it's worth, please stop addressing my posts from now on

 

[Tishri1]

Hi Opal,

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I never claimed that Paul's writings were not God's Word. Indeed, I believe that they are.

I understand Daniel, you are clearer than sunshine, there is nothing confusing about what you said...oy vey

 

[DanielRB]

Hi again Daniel,

If you cannot hear what the Apostle Paul is saying then I have no hope that you will hear me.

Shalom Opal,

I'm sorry, but I've tried explaining myself several times, and yet you still seem to misunderstand me. Please re-read what I've posted. I don't think I'll try to clarify myself again for you, because I seem to be doing a poor job of it.

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[DanielRB]

I understand Daniel, you are clearer than sunshine, there is nothing confusing about what you said...oy vey

Shalom Tishri, and thanks!

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[DanielRB]

Hi Daniel, I still think that Yeshua's words are binding and smooth(as opposed to rough) and state the plain truth and I believe it sooooo much that I have to find out the bottom line of all the other verses in the NT that don't jiveIf Yeshua said it is one way that's the truth in my book and I will set my theology on his words before any other's

Shalom Tishri,

I understand, and your position does have its merits...after all, if Yeshua is Lord, then we would say that the words of the Gospel is of prime importance. The gospels should be our guiding light.

Of course, those who believe that Torah-observance is no more (even if they understand that most Messianic Jews believe that Torah-observance is not for salvation, any more than avoidance of sin by the non-Torah-observant Christian is to get saved) would say that they do believe the words of the Gospels and Yeshua is their Lord; they just understand his words differently.

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[OPAL]

Hi Opal,

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I never claimed that Paul's writings were not God's Word. Indeed, I believe that they are.

I just see that there are apparent contradictions (which is not the same thing as real contradictions) between what Paul wrote, and what Jesus said in the gospels, and what Torah itself says, concerning the responsibility we have to obey the law.

I don't believe that there are simplistic answers to harmonize these apparent contradictions. I think that most Bible-believing Christians interpret Paul using the plainest understanding of his words, and that many Messianic Jews (for example--they aren't the only ones) who have more "creative" interpretations of Paul's words in order to harmonize what he said with the plainest interpretation of Jesus' words on the law and the words of the law itself.

In other words: if one uses the "plainest meaning" (given grammatical-historical context) of Torah and Gospel, it seems to suggest that obeying the Mosaic code is still our duty. If one uses "plainest meaning" to intrepret Paul, it seems fairly clear that the obedience to the Mosaic code is not our duty.

There are two ways to resolve this apparent contradiction (and still hold that the Bible is 100% inspired and 100% true): (1) interpret Paul literally (by "literal" I mean the plainest meaning given proper historical and grammatical context), and Torah and the Gospel other than literally; or (2) interpret Torah and the Gospel literally and Paul other than literally.

Most Christians follow (1); but Messianic Jews and (to a certain extent) Seventh-Day Adventists choose (2).

Does that make sense now?

In Messiah,

Daniel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Danial and Tishri1,
I am not trying to twist anyone or anything. Daniel, you said, in your second paragraph that there are apparent contradictions between what Jesus said and what the Apostle Paul said. One of my points is that there are no contradictions in what Jesus said and what Paul said. You think that I am contentious but I am not. You said yourself that you did not read , but only skimmed over the previous comments before you posted. I have not done that but have carefully considered everything that has been said.

You know, because you are famaliar with the Bible, that God is not the author of confusion; I believe that. Am I twisting your words when you say that the word is confusing? Better said on your part, that it is not the word that is confused, but your understanding of it. Am I cruel or heartless and munipulative if I agree with God? I cannot apologize for believing the word to be without contradiction and inspired by God.

I'll try once again, because perhaps it is I that am not making myself clear, but only once, because you are all getting weary, I think.

The Hebrews knew that to stand before God they had to be without spot, blameless and unashamed, right? Is this not to be one's goal before he meets his maker?

Now, the offering up of the blood of bulls and goats did purge one of sin in the flesh, making one blameless under the law, but not one's conscience. Why? because sacrafices had to be offered up continually bringing to rememberance one's sins. Now if sacrafices are offered up continually then there is sin conscienceness. One cannot stand before God sin conscience.

So, Christ offered up himself once by the shedding of his blood so that we would have no more conscience of sin.

Hebrews 9:9, "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience."

Unlike the sacrafices offer under the law, Christ is not continually forgiving one of sin. It is a done deal, now it is time to believe that he has offered righteousness without the works of the law.

Hebrews 10:1-2, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

One must be perfect to stand before God. If one believes that he is a sinner, still born the old man, Adam, then one is till under the law and will not be able to stand; one is not believing in the redemption. One will condemn himself in the Day of Judgment because he does not believe in the works of Christ.

In closing, Philippians 3:9, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

 

[OPAL]

Hi Opal,

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I never claimed that Paul's writings were not God's Word. Indeed, I believe that they are.

I just see that there are apparent contradictions (which is not the same thing as real contradictions) between what Paul wrote, and what Jesus said in the gospels, and what Torah itself says, concerning the responsibility we have to obey the law.

I don't believe that there are simplistic answers to harmonize these apparent contradictions. I think that most Bible-believing Christians interpret Paul using the plainest understanding of his words, and that many Messianic Jews (for example--they aren't the only ones) who have more "creative" interpretations of Paul's words in order to harmonize what he said with the plainest interpretation of Jesus' words on the law and the words of the law itself.

In other words: if one uses the "plainest meaning" (given grammatical-historical context) of Torah and Gospel, it seems to suggest that obeying the Mosaic code is still our duty. If one uses "plainest meaning" to intrepret Paul, it seems fairly clear that the obedience to the Mosaic code is not our duty.

There are two ways to resolve this apparent contradiction (and still hold that the Bible is 100% inspired and 100% true): (1) interpret Paul literally (by "literal" I mean the plainest meaning given proper historical and grammatical context), and Torah and the Gospel other than literally; or (2) interpret Torah and the Gospel literally and Paul other than literally.

Most Christians follow (1); but Messianic Jews and (to a certain extent) Seventh-Day Adventists choose (2).

Does that make sense now?

In Messiah,

Daniel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Danial and Tishri1,
I am not trying to twist anyone or anything. Daniel, you said, in your second paragraph that there are apparent contradictions between what Jesus said and what the Apostle Paul said. One of my points is that there are no contradictions in what Jesus said and what Paul said. You think that I am contentious but I am not. You said yourself that you did not read , but only skimmed over the previous comments before you posted. I have not done that but have carefully considered everything that has been said.

You know, because you are famaliar with the Bible, that God is not the author of confusion; I believe that. Am I twisting your words when you say that the word is confusing? Better said on your part, that it is not the word that is confused, but your understanding of it. Am I cruel or heartless and munipulative if I agree with God? I cannot apologize for believing the word to be without contradiction and inspired by God.

I'll try once again, because perhaps it is I that am not making myself clear, but only once, because you are all getting weary, I think.

The Hebrews knew that to stand before God they had to be without spot, blameless and unashamed, right? Is this not to be one's goal before he meets his maker?

Now, the offering up of the blood of bulls and goats did purge one of sin in the flesh, making one blameless under the law, but not one's conscience. Why? because sacrafices had to be offered up continually bringing to rememberance one's sins. Now if sacrafices are offered up continually then there is sin conscienceness. One cannot stand before God sin conscience.

So, Christ offered up himself once by the shedding of his blood so that we would have no more conscience of sin.

Hebrews 9:9, "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience."

Unlike the sacrafices offer under the law, Christ is not continually forgiving one of sin. It is a done deal, now it is time to believe that he has offered righteousness without the works of the law.

Hebrews 10:1-2, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

One must be perfect to stand before God. If one believes that he is a sinner, still born the old man, Adam, then one is till under the law and will not be able to stand; one is not believing in the redemption. One will condemn himself in the Day of Judgment because he does not believe in the works of Christ.

In closing, Philippians 3:9, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

 

[Tishri1]

would say that they do believe the words of the Gospels and Yeshua is their Lord; they just understand his words differently.

In Messiah,

Daniel

yes again you struck the bull's eye my friend!

When I started seeing the inconsistantcys (spell check) in the Scripture I just had to find out why....

The Jews think Paul is a traitor even more than Jesus because what He said was contradicting Torah AND even Jesus' words ...Many Messianics and Christians too have a problem with Him.

Me, well I just had to find out if there was a misunderstanding involved....that led me on MY search to find out why in the Scriptures

..but if someone else is happy with the status quo and has their mind made up that's cool... many people have "different" opinions than me and I'm fine with that...

 

[DanielRB]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Danial and Tishri1,
I am not trying to twist anyone or anything. Daniel, you said, in your second paragraph that there are apparent contradictions between what Jesus said and what the Apostle Paul said. One of my points is that there are no contradictions in what Jesus said and what Paul said. You think that I am contentious but I am not. You said yourself that you did not read , but only skimmed over the previous comments before you posted. I have not done that but have carefully considered everything that has been said.

Shalom Opal,

Thanks for your reply.

In my second paragraph you are correct; I said there are apparent contradictions. I also stated that "they are not the same thing as real contradictions". I believe you are correct when you state that "there are no [real] contradictions in what Jesus said and what Paul said."

Do you understand now?

However, you stated that you thought I believed Paul's letters not to be God's word. I never stated that. That is what you posted that was incorrect.

Will you now acknowledge that I believe Paul's letter's to be God's word?

You know, because you are famaliar with the Bible, that God is not the author of confusion; I believe that. Am I twisting your words when you say that the word is confusing? Better said on your part, that it is not the word that is confused, but your understanding of it. Am I cruel or heartless and munipulative if I agree with God? I cannot apologize for believing the word to be without contradiction and inspired by God.

In 1 Cor 14:33, Paul is speaking of order in worship (see the context)--not having all Prophets speak at once, for example. Paul is not saying that everything in God's word is easy to understand.

I am reflecting the same point of view of Peter when he stated that there are many things that Paul writes that are confusing (2 Pet 3:15-16).

I'll try once again, because perhaps it is I that am not making myself clear, but only once, because you are all getting weary, I think.

The Hebrews knew that to stand before God they had to be without spot, blameless and unashamed, right? Is this not to be one's goal before he meets his maker?

Now, the offering up of the blood of bulls and goats did purge one of sin in the flesh, making one blameless under the law, but not one's conscience. Why? because sacrafices had to be offered up continually bringing to rememberance one's sins. Now if sacrafices are offered up continually then there is sin conscienceness. One cannot stand before God sin conscience.

So, Christ offered up himself once by the shedding of his blood so that we would have no more conscience of sin.

Hebrews 9:9, "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience."

Unlike the sacrafices offer under the law, Christ is not continually forgiving one of sin. It is a done deal, now it is time to believe that he has offered righteousness without the works of the law.

Hebrews 10:1-2, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

One must be perfect to stand before God. If one believes that he is a sinner, still born the old man, Adam, then one is till under the law and will not be able to stand; one is not believing in the redemption. One will condemn himself in the Day of Judgment because he does not believe in the works of Christ.

In closing, Philippians 3:9, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

I don't disagree at all with your analysis. That is what the Bible teaches in the words of Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews. However, the issue is not just what Paul said, but rather how do we reconcile what Paul said with what Jesus said in the Gospels about the Law and what the Old Testament says in itself?

In Messiah,

Daniel

 

[OPAL]

Hi Daniel,

Could you give me an example? I'd appreciate it.

 

[WAB]

When we realize that what Yeshua taught the disciples was prior to His death, burial, and resurrection, it then becomes obvious that the Law (old covenant) was still in effect. That is why He told the leper He had healed to "...go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift (sacrifice) that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Matthew 8:4).

Further, in Matthew 23:1-3 we find... "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; (the seat of authority under the law) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not."

Obviously what the scribes and Pharisees would bid the hearers of Yeshua to observe and do would come from the Laws of Moses. But...

Hebrews 9:15-17... "And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament (covenant, same word), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testiment is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

So... while the testator (Yeshua) was alive in the flesh, the New Covenant was not in effect. But Hallelujah!... now it is, and none of the requirements of the laws of Moses are applicable to one who by virtue of being "in Christ" is a participant in that New Covenant.

 

[WAB]

Dear sister... in one of your posts you say... "If one believes that he is a sinner, still born the old man, Adam, then one is still under the law and will not be able to stand; one is not believing in the redemption."

It sounds as if you believe that once one is "in Christ" that sin has been eradicated from that one's being, and that he/she no longer has an old sin nature.

Am sure you would agree that the Apostle John was "in Christ", and that he was used of God to write portions of Scripture. In light of that, here is his declaration re the matter...

"This then is the message that we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; But if we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:5-9).

Please note that John uses the word "we" repeatedly; i.e. including himself. Also he uses the word "us" in verses 7,8, & 9, again including himself as one who has the potential to sin because of the fact that the old sin nature has not been eradicated, but that our individual sins may be cleansed as we avail ourselves of the remedy presented in verse 9.

Please ponder the truth of verse 8... "If we say that we have (present tense) no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." To phrase that slightly differently... If the truth is in us, we won't say that we have no sin.

God bless...

 

[WAB]

Only the trivial ones are not binding. (E.g., head shaving, circumcision, etc.)

That can only be swallowed if one does not believe James 2:10... "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point he is guilty of all."

Of course only Yeshua, Immanuel, God manifest in the flesh, was able to keep the Law without stumbling in any degree.

"Therefore the law was our tutor (pedagogue: child conductor) to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24). When one realizes that there is no way any person other than Christ could ever keep the law in it's entirety, then coming to that realization we put our trust in the finished work of Calvary's cross for our salvation... and nothing else.