Questions for Sabbath practitioners

[daq]

I am afraid we need more than your say-so that this is a terrible translation.

In any event, in post 90, I believe I demonstrate two that the word to which you ascribe the meaning "dogma", a selective filtering that no doubts serves your agenda very well, actually has a broader semantic range - it can mean a "decree" or an "edict" as well. In fact, I showed from two specific examples in the New Testament how this word is used to mean something that is clearly not "dogma".

The word is literally dogma transliterated straight from the Greek word δογμα. Moreover I have already been using the other words you say it also means because they are found in the scripture. There are several examples from the two previous replies which I just posted. Here is just one so that you may hopefully see the straw-man fallacy in your complaint.

It's used in the Septuagint but never for the Torah: always for dogmas, decrees, and edicts of kings, rulers, despots, and so on.

 

[expos4ever]

This is the clincher:
....
"NO FOREIGNER IS TO ENTER WITHIN THE BALUSTRADE AND EMBANKMENT AROUND THE SANCTUARY: WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW.".......

I have heard this argument before. Even though these signs indeed function as "a wall of separation", you cannot make such a reading cohere with the context in which Paul embeds this allusion to a wall of separation.

Here is a key point of method: There are two at least superficially plausible hypotheses on the table: (1) the wall of separation are these stones and signs you refer to; and (2) the wall of separation is the Torah. The relevant question is which fits better into the context.

Let's contrast these two hypotheses as we walk through the context in detail.

11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Why were gentiles excluded from the people of Israel? Because of some sign put up in the temple courtyard? Of course not. They were excluded by the very charter of the nation of Israel, the Torah.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

Again, what was the real reason for the division between Jew and gentile? The signs in the temple courtyard are of course a manifestation of the division, but the division itself is fundamentally created by the giving of the Torah to the nation of Israel. As God Himself says, “I have singled you out from the peoples to be mine” (Leviticus 20) - this separation of Jew from Gentile had nothing to do with signs in the temple courtyard - the signs in are but one example of how that separation plays out. The primary grounding of the separation lies in the Torah which clearly marked out the Jew from the Gentile in many different ways

15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

What would bring the Jew and gentile together? Eliminating a few signs in and around the temple? Of course not - the division runs much deeper than this. it is the Torah, not some signs in a courtyard that constitutes the fundamental bridge to be gapped. Is Paul talking about signs in a courtyard when he characterizes the division between Jew and gentile in the following way?

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one

One of Paul's central themes is bringing Jew and Gentile together. Here, he does not talk about man-made stones as the basis for the separation but rather the Law.

 

[daq]

I have heard this argument before. Even though these signs indeed function as "a wall of separation", you cannot make such a reading cohere with the context in which Paul embeds this allusion to a wall of separation.

Here is a key point of method: There are two at least superficially plausible hypotheses on the table: (1) the wall of separation are these stones and signs you refer to; and (2) the wall of separation is the Torah. The relevant question is which fits better into the context.

Let's contrast these two hypotheses as we walk through the context in detail.

11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Why were gentiles excluded from the people of Israel? Because of some sign put up in the temple courtyard? Of course not. They were excluded by the very charter of the nation of Israel, the Torah.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

Again, what was the real reason for the division between Jew and gentile? The signs in the temple courtyard are of course a manifestation of the division, but the division itself is fundamentally created by the giving of the Torah to the nation of Israel. As God Himself says, “I have singled you out from the peoples to be mine” (Leviticus 20) - this separation of Jew from Gentile had nothing to do with signs in the temple courtyard - the signs in are but one example of how that separation plays out. The primary grounding of the separation lies in the Torah which clearly marked out the Jew from the Gentile in many different ways

15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

What would bring the Jew and gentile together? Eliminating a few signs in and around the temple? Of course not - the division runs much deeper than this. it is the Torah, not some signs in a courtyard that constitutes the fundamental bridge to be gapped. Is Paul talking about signs in a courtyard when he characterizes the division between Jew and gentile in the following way?

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one

One of Paul's central themes is bringing Jew and Gentile together. Here, he does not talk about man-made stones as the basis for the separation but rather the Law.

Nope. He is talking about the interpretation of the Torah, not the Torah itself, and that's already been proven with multiple examples from multiple places and statements. It was the wrong interpretations and understanding of the Torah which brought about incorrect rulings that only served to bring the people into bondage. It's pretty ridiculous to believe that Elohim brought His people out of Egyptian slavery just to put them under bondage again.

Haven't we already been over Galatians 4? The wrong understanding, which is the outward and the physical mindset of the natural man, is Hagar, Egypt, and of below, and that mindset is what engenders bondage because it views all scripture according to the natural mind of the natural man who can neither please Elohim nor be subject to His Torah.

 

[expos4ever]

It isn't me who is taking a particular line. The simple fact is that you chose not to believe what Paul plainly says.

Galatians 4:1-2 KJV
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

Again, the chapter break is misleading: the above is the conclusion of what was said in the previous chapter. You can say that the above is only about history if you want but that is nothing more than an ill-informed opinion.

No. This is about history, not the timeline of development in the life of the believer. Readers will see that you have simply not engaged with the actual arguments I have made that show that what is in view here is God's broader redemptive plan. How do you explain this, if what Paul is talking about is the life of the individual believer?

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made

You cannot deny that this is about history, not the timeline of your or my life.

Is the law added during my life or yours?

Did Jesus come during my life or yours?

There is no escape - this is about history.

As for Galatians 4, let me show the readers what you very conveniently did not:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So we too, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters.

Again, clearly the issue here is God's broad plan of redemption, not the track of your life or mine.

 

[expos4ever]

Colossians 2:14-15 TS2009
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.

Now do you understand?

I understand something quite clearly - that you are taking a particular word in greek and translating it in a manner that suits your position when, in fact, other meanings are possible:

δόγμα,n \{dog'-mah}: 1) doctrine, decree, ordinance 1a) of public decrees 1b) of the Roman Senate 1c) of rulers 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment 3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

The attentive reader will see what is happening here: you are leveraging the fact that, to the modern, Biblically illiterate ear, the single word "dogma" has a meaning that would lead one to conclude that the Law of Moses itself could not possibly be the referent.

But, as the above definition show, this is not the case - the greek word can take on a range of meanings, including a reference to the Law of Moses.

Now to the next verse about disarming the powers. Here, I believe that you making the very plausible argument that Paul must be writing about man-made perversions of the Law since he then immediately writes that this "nailing of the ordnances" to the cross has been to the ruin of dark forces. So, you are saying I believe, that since we all know that the Pharisees were indeed perverting the law, it must be these perversions that have been nailed to the cross, and not the Law itself.

This sounds very plausible indeed.

But there is a problem: if we are careful readers of Paul, we know that he believes the Law actually functioned as a means through which the power of sin has acted:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead

Note Paul's exact wording - the Law played a role in producing coveting. Readers, be wary of those who will want to edit Paul by having him say this, instead:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, revealed in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead

So there we have it: Paul sees the Law as a thing which, in fact does aid and abet the "powers and principalities". And that is why we are not, in fact, forced to conclude that the powers and principalities have been disarmed by getting rid of man-made perversions of Torah, it could be Torah itself that is "the problem".

And the next verse weighs very heavily in the direction of the latter interpretation:

16Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Now I know you are going to insist that "a Sabbath day" is a mistranslation. Well, let's forget about that for the moment. Paul makes unambiguous reference to 2 key elements of the Torah - the festivals and the kosher food laws. And the "therefore" show that what he has just said in responsible for his instruction to not worry anymore about food and festivals.

Here is the point: if it is, as I suggest, the Torah that has been nailed to cross, this "therefore" sentence makes perfect sense - with the Torah nailed to the cross, no more Torah-prescribed festivals and no more Torah-prescribed food restrictions.

Now consider the position you are in: you need to explain this therefore in terms of the nailing to the cross of man-made additions. The careful reader will see the problem: even if such man-made perversions are indeed nailed to the Cross, the Torah itself remains with it clear rules about festivals and food. So what Paul is saying in verse 16 and 17 would make no sense - if Torah is the not the thing nailed to the cross, we very much have to still worry about festivals and food.

 

[daq]

No. This is about history, not the timeline of development in the life of the believer. Readers will see that you have simply not engaged with the actual arguments I have made that show that what is in view here is God's broader redemptive plan. How do you explain this, if what Paul is talking about is the life of the individual believer?

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made

You cannot deny that this is about history, not the timeline of your or my life.

Is the law added during my life or yours?

Did Jesus come during my life or yours?

There is no escape - this is about history.

As for Galatians 4, let me show the readers what you very conveniently did not:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So we too, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters.

Again, clearly the issue here is God's broad plan of redemption, not the track of your life or mine.

Nope, Paul teaches that all true believers join the commonwealth of Yisrael: that's why the historical commentary counts, and why, as I already stated, such things are for our examples just as Paul also teaches. Those examples apply to the walk of the believer: but for those who refuse to be grafted into Yisrael, well, I guess they have their multitude of outside opinions that really don't mean anything in the end.

 

[daq]

I understand something quite clearly - that you are taking a particular word in greek and translating it in a manner that suits your position when, in fact, other meanings are possible:

δόγμα,n \{dog'-mah}: 1) doctrine, decree, ordinance 1a) of public decrees 1b) of the Roman Senate 1c) of rulers 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment 3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

The attentive reader will see what is happening here: you are leveraging the fact that, to the modern, Biblically illiterate ear, the single word "dogma" has a meaning that would lead one to conclude that the Law of Moses itself could not possibly be the referent.

But, as the above definition show, this is not the case - the greek word can take on a range of meanings, including a reference to the Law of Moses.

Now to the next verse about disarming the powers. Here, I believe that you making the very plausible argument that Paul must be writing about man-made perversions of the Law since he then immediately writes that this "nailing of the ordnances" to the cross has been to the ruin of dark forces. So, you are saying I believe, that since we all know that the Pharisees were indeed perverting the law, it must be these perversions that have been nailed to the cross, and not the Law itself.

This sounds very plausible indeed.

But there is a problem: if we are careful readers of Paul, we know that he believes the Law actually functioned as a means through which the power of sin has acted:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead

Note Paul's exact wording - the Law played a role in producing coveting. Readers, be wary of those who will want to edit Paul by having him say this, instead:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, revealed in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead

So there we have it: Paul sees the Law as a thing which, in fact does aid and abet the "powers and principalities". And that is why we are not, in fact, forced to conclude that the powers and principalities have been disarmed by getting rid of man-made perversions of Torah, it could be Torah itself that is "the problem".

And the next verse weighs very heavily in the direction of the latter interpretation:

16Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Now I know you are going to insist that "a Sabbath day" is a mistranslation. Well, let's forget about that for the moment. Paul makes unambiguous reference to 2 key elements of the Torah - the festivals and the kosher food laws. And the "therefore" show that what he has just said in responsible for his instruction to not worry anymore about food and festivals.

Here is the point: if it is, as I suggest, the Torah that has been nailed to cross, this "therefore" sentence makes perfect sense - with the Torah nailed to the cross, no more Torah-prescribed festivals and no more Torah-prescribed food restrictions.

Now consider the position you are in: you need to explain this therefore in terms of the nailing to the cross of man-made additions. The careful reader will see the problem: even if such man-made perversions are indeed nailed to the Cross, the Torah itself remains with it clear rules about festivals and food. So what Paul is saying in verse 16 and 17 would make no sense - if Torah is the not the thing nailed to the cross, we very much have to still worry about festivals and food.

It's quite amusing to see that you keep indirectly addressing "the reader", (in this case "the attentive reader"), but the attentive reader who seeks the truth will also easily recognize that you continue ignoring context in favor of your own paradigm.

Here is some of the context again from the KJV instead of the TS2009, (which rightly renders dogma, as already quoted).

Colossians 2:20-22 KJV
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, [G1379 dogmatizo]
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

The observant and attentive reader who seeks the truth will see by the context exactly what Paul is talking about here: the commandments and doctrines of men, and what the KJV renders as ordinances here is dogmatizo, dogma, and the context surely does not speak of the Torah, which again, Paul says is spiritual, (Romans 7:14).

You have simply either made up your own dogma or have been taught a false dogma and do not wish to surrender it even if it means you do not agree with the Logos in Paul's writings.

 

[daq]

Now to address this requests even though, as any Biblically literate reader will know, is posed in a manner that illicitly restricts what counts as legitimate Biblical evidence.

As a "Biblically literate reader" myself I also see that what you accuse me of doing you yourself have done herein, yet again, with the quote you provided from the Matthew passage which followed your comments quoted above in that same post.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and we in the modern west have been careless in understanding the implications. On a surface reading, a text like Luke 16:17 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which declare the abolition of the Law of Moses. Here is Matthew's version:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

You then proceed to the straw-man argument that I did not make here, by claiming that the passage is difficult to understand unless one sees the heavens and the earth being symbolism or metaphor. Then you proceed to use your interpretation of the perceived metaphor to justify yourself in setting aside or retiring the Torah.

How can one read this text and think that the Law of Moses has been set aside, given that heaven and earth are still here?

There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Your quote from the Matthew passage isn't truthful, imo, but rather based on the typical bias which is based in both a dispensationist, ("age of grace"), and the anti-Torah mindset.

Matthew 5:17 TS2009 W/Footnotes
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.e I did not come to destroy but to complete. Footnote: eThe Law and the Prophets is a term used for the pre-Messianic Scriptures.

Matthew 5:17 SLT
17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law, or the prophets: for I have come not abolish, but to complete.

Pleroo literally means to cram to the full, to completely fill, to fill up, to complete. And this is precisely what we find in the Testimony of the Messiah in other places.

Matthew 23:23 ASV
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

Luke 11:42 ASV
42 But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over justice and the love of God: but these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

By saying "these ye ought to have done", what does he mean by, "and not to leave the other undone"? Those things are expounded in the contexts of these two passages wherein these two statements are found.

Therefore they not only omitted the weightier matters of the Torah, such as justice, and mercy, (and grace), and faith, and the love of God: but they also misunderstood and therefore incorrectly interpreted the others things in all of their natural minded outward rulings, and therefore, they even left those things upon which they ruled undone because they misapplied the Torah due to a faulty understanding of the spiritual Torah-Instruction of the Father.

This is why he says what he says in Matthew 5:17, that he came to fill up the Torah to the full, and to fully complete it by way of completing the proper interpretation and understanding of the Torah.

One does not do this, knowing he is going to be crucified for going against the establishment, if indeed he knows that the supernal and spiritual correct way of understanding the Torah is simply going to be nullified by his own followers after his death.

 

[expos4ever]

You then quoted only the statement concerning the 613 Mitzvot of the Pharisees and stated that you heartily agree with the statement that you quoted.
...
While I did see your explanation that followed still yet it doesn't matter what your excuse was: the fact of the matter is that you do indeed appeal to the authority of the Pharisees in the above post

What an outrageous misrepresentation.

I have never appealed to the authority of the Pharisees. The fact that I agreed with this statement

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

....means that I agree that the Law of Moses is comprised of those 613 items. The only authority that I have appealed to is the general consensus that there are 613 elements to the Law of Moses. If that view can be traced to the Pharisees, so what? I certainly did not agree with the statement because I believed it came from the Pharisees.

But this is all besides the point. You made the accusation that I was appealing to Pharisaical authority in an entirely different context. And in that context, I was certainly doing no such thing.

Please stop making things up.

 

[daq]

What an outrageous misrepresentation.

I have never appealed to the authority of the Pharisees. The fact that I agreed with this statement

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

....means that I agree that the Law of Moses is comprised of those 613 items. The only authority that I have appealed to is the general consensus that there are 613 elements to the Law of Moses. If that view can be traced to the Pharisees, so what? I certainly did not agree with the statement because I believed it came from the Pharisees.

But this is all besides the point. You made the accusation that I was appealing to Pharisaical authority in an entirely different context. And in that context, I was certainly doing no such thing.

Please stop making things up.

This very statement in your response quoted herein:

"The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

....means that I agree that the Law of Moses is comprised of those 613 items."

Is yet another appeal to the authority of the Pharisees. It appears you do not understand anything that has been presented.

"The Talmud tells us (Tractate Makkot 23b) that there are 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah; 248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)."
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments-Mitzvot.htm

You have appealed to the Talmud in your ignorance. Is this not exactly what the OP also did? Yes, and it was done so as to force this Talmudic understanding of the Torah upon those of us whom the Messiah has set free from those outward and natural minded interpretations of the Torah which Paul calls "the works of the law".

 

[expos4ever]

What most of these translator interpretations are saying is tantamount to saying that the Messiah is not being truthful in what he says in passages like Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33.

There are other explanations:

Matthew 5:17-19 + Luke 16:17: Jesus was drawing on a well-known tradition of using "end-of-the-world" language to refer to key events in the here-and-now.

Matthew 24:35 + Mark 13:31 + Luke 21:33: Jesus tells us "His words would not pass away". I suggest that He never intended for the Law of Moses to be considered "His words", this side of the Cross. In any event, Jesus says the law will end when "all is accomplished". What are His last words? "It is finished". You have to take this as a coincidence. Let the reader decide how plausible that is.

 

[expos4ever]

This very statement in your response quoted herein:

"The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

....means that I agree that the Law of Moses is comprised of those 613 items."

Is yet another appeal to the authority of the Pharisees.

No!

Do I really need to explain this?

Let's agree that the Pharisees declared there are 613 elements in the Law.

The fact that I happen to agree with the Pharisees on this does not necessarily mean I am appealing to the authority of the Pharisees! I did not even know that this 613 count came from the Pharisees, so it is impossible for me to commit the "appeal to authority" fallacy, at least with regard to appealing to the authority of the Pharisees! I never, repeat never appealed to the authority of the Pharisees.

Why did I agree with the statement about the Law being made up of 613 elements? Because, it is my understanding that this is what scholars, not the Pharisees, believe to be the case.

Was I guilty of the "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Not in any way.

Even though the reason I believe that the Law had 613 elements was because this is what I believe scholars believe to be the case, I never appealed to the authority of those scholars - I simply agreed with a statement.

This is not rocket science - to "appeal to authority" is make a statement of the form "I believe X because authority Y has declared X to be the case".

I have never done anything remotely akin to this in this thread.

This should end this little tangent, but I am sure it will not.

 

[Leaf473]

This very statement in your response quoted herein:

"The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

....means that I agree that the Law of Moses is comprised of those 613 items."

Is yet another appeal to the authority of the Pharisees. It appears you do not understand anything that has been presented.

"The Talmud tells us (Tractate Makkot 23b) that there are 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah; 248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)."
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments-Mitzvot.htm

You have appealed to the Talmud in your ignorance. Is this not exactly what the OP also did? Yes, and it was done so as to force this Talmudic understanding of the Torah upon those of us whom the Messiah has set free from those outward and natural minded interpretations of the Torah which Paul calls "the works of the law".

Are you saying that the phrase "the works of the law" refers to talmudic commentaries on the law?

 

[daq]

Are you saying that the phrase "the works of the law" refers to talmudic commentaries on the law?

Pretty much, yes, because the Talmud contains the teachings and interpretations of the Pharisees even as far back as the first century and before that time. That's the whole reason for my opening comment in this thread: they lost the debate over the true and correct interpretation of the Torah. That's precisely what Paul is telling the Colossians in the passage already quoted and expounded herein, (in the debate over the meaning of dogma).

The "works of the Law" are the outward and natural minded interpretations of the Torah which cannot please Elohim, and rather, deceive the adherent into believing he or she is doing the will of Elohim and "obeying" the Torah.

It is an offensive false accusation and a straw-man argument to pin their interpretations onto those who observe the Torah according to the supernal Way as interpreted and taught by the Messiah in the Gospel accounts in all his teachings.

To argue for the Pharisaic outward interpretations of the Torah is by default an appeal to the authority of the Pharisees, and the Talmud, against the teachings of the Messiah who freely offered up the truth and was crucified for his Testimony.

 

[expos4ever]

To argue for the Pharisaic outward interpretations of the Torah is by default an appeal to the authority of the Pharisees,

This is not an accurate statement. Just because one might happen to share the Pharisees' conclusion obviously does not necessarily entail appeal to authority. The person who shares the Pharisees' conclusion may have reached that conclusion without appealing to the authority of the Pharisees.

In fact, even if someone reached that conclusions using the very same arguments that the Pharisees used this does not entail an appeal to authority. As long as arguments are provided, even bad ones, one is not appealing to authority.

 

[daq]

This is not an accurate statement. Just because one might happen to share the Pharisees' conclusion obviously does not necessarily entail appeal to authority. The person who shares the Pharisees' conclusion may have reached that conclusion without appealing to the authority of the Pharisees.

In fact, even if someone reached that conclusions using the very same arguments that the Pharisees used this does not entail an appeal to authority. As long as arguments are provided, even bad ones, one is not appealing to authority.

Their interpretations of the Torah were codified long before any of us came along. Moreover I've already pointed to three full passages of scripture from the Gospel accounts where the Messiah overturns their traditions, rulings, ordinances, dogmas, and decrees.

And in addition to Matthew 5, Matthew 23, and Luke 11, there is also more specifically the hand washing ritual of the Pharisees which was handed down by way of the tradition of the Elders, (the same are "those of old time", Matthew 5:21), clearly called the tradition of men in Mark 7:8-9, which set aside the commandments of Elohim.

 

[Leaf473]

Pretty much, yes, because the Talmud contains the teachings and interpretations of the Pharisees even as far back as the first century and before that time. That's the whole reason for my opening comment in this thread: they lost the debate over the true and correct interpretation of the Torah. That's precisely what Paul is telling the Colossians in the passage already quoted and expounded herein, (in the debate over the meaning of dogma).

The "works of the Law" are the outward and natural minded interpretations of the Torah which cannot please Elohim, and rather, deceive the adherent into believing he or she is doing the will of Elohim and "obeying" the Torah.

It is an offensive false accusation and a straw-man argument to pin their interpretations onto those who observe the Torah according to the supernal Way as interpreted and taught by the Messiah in the Gospel accounts in all his teachings.

To argue for the Pharisaic outward interpretations of the Torah is by default an appeal to the authority of the Pharisees, and the Talmud, against the teachings of the Messiah who freely offered up the truth and was crucified for his Testimony.

Please give an example of observing the Torah according to the supernal Way.

 

[daq]

Please give an example of observing the Torah according to the supernal Way.

1 Corinthians 9:7-11 KJV
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Understand? This is logos, that is, in the sense of reasoning and logic. With this in mind it is not difficult to see why Paul receives this straight from the passage.

Deuteronomy 25:1-5 KJV
1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

Everything surrounding the statement concerns men and brethren: but the commandment against muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain sticks out like a sore thumb if you read it to be speaking of a literal ox.

Paul is showing us how to understand the Torah by reasoning and logic: most of which is actually taught in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts by examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, sayings, and so on. The logical answer is that herein the Torah speaks metaphorically of men as oxen because everything surrounding the statement speaks of men and brethren.

Read this statement as nothing more than speaking of a literal ox and you may as well be one of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers who nullified the teachings of the Torah with their natural minded, carnal man, outward-physical interpretations. The Torah is spiritual, (Romans 7:14).

 

[Leaf473]

1 Corinthians 9:7-11 KJV
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Understand? This is logos, that is, in the sense of reasoning and logic. With this in mind it is not difficult to see why Paul receives this straight from the passage.

Deuteronomy 25:1-5 KJV
1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

Everything surrounding the statement concerns men and brethren: but the commandment against muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain sticks out like a sore thumb if you read it to be speaking of a literal ox.

Paul is showing us how to understand the Torah by reasoning and logic: most of which is actually taught in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts by examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, sayings, and so on. The logical answer is that herein the Torah speaks metaphorically of men as oxen because everything surrounding the statement speaks of men and brethren.

Read this statement as nothing more than speaking of a literal ox and you may as well be one of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers who nullified the teachings of the Torah with their natural minded, carnal man, outward-physical interpretations. The Torah is spiritual, (Romans 7:14).

Are you saying that the Torah contains metaphors? If so, then I think we agree... I'm fine interpreting it using Jesus' examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, sayings, and so on, as you say.

And definitely don't use the natural mind, we have the mind of Christ!

 

[daq]

Are you saying that the Torah contains metaphors? If so, then I think we agree... I'm fine interpreting it using Jesus' examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, sayings, and so on, as you say.

And definitely don't use the natural mind, we have the mind of Christ!

What therefore is the mind of Messiah concerning oxen in the Torah? What Paul says concerning oxen in the passage I quoted above is not a one time thing: it's an instruction, a teaching.

Isaiah 66:3a
3a He that slaughters the ox slays a man,

Exodus 21:28-32 KJV
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

So then, if a wild ox pushes at you, or smites you with his horns: "turn the other cheek" and do not return evil for evil, for in so doing you will be storing up treasure in heaven, for the money is thirty shekels of silver, and this is heavenly money because it is the shekel of the sanctuary.

But if you smite back with your horns, do you not have your reward? You are even: for you have exacted your own retribution. Moreover if you love only those who love you, what reward is there in that? Do not the Republicans and Democrats do the same?

So we see in the above passage that the Master is teaching from the Torah concerning turning the other cheek: and this has enormous implications, for it is the law that the master of the other ox must pay your Master thirty shekels of silver, and therefore the master of the other ox is in debt to your Master, according to the Torah.

Who therefore is the master of Judas the wild ox?

Matthew 26:14-16 KJV
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

Matthew 26:47-49 KJV
47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

Ahah... And what did our Master do? did he retaliate? He turned the other cheek and did not return evil for evil, though he knew he was being betrayed, and he was betrayed with a kiss for thirty pieces of silver.

Why thirty pieces and not thirty shekels? The pieces are physical money, but the shekels are spiritual heavenly money, being the shekel of the sanctuary. Judas went for the physical and paid no heed to spiritual and supernal things or the teachings of the Messiah.

The master of Judas, the Satan, therefore incurs a catastrophic legal debt according to the Torah, and he will take it out of the hide of Judas: and who will stop him? it's the law, and it's his wild ox.