Testing Spirits

[HARK!]

You asked for an example but failed to asked for a specific example about abstaining from food. So I gave you an example regarding the point (which is what we are discussing).

Circumcision is the example I gave you and I'm sorry if doesn't follow your train of thought but I'm really not interested in this back and forth thing so can I request that we stay at circumcision as it is a valid point to the OP and unspecific question at hand. If you want it more specific we may discuss the hypothetical of a spirit saying "don't physically cut off the foreskin of your child" and now how can this be tested?

If you can neither explain nor defend your position; that's OK. You don't have to keep changing the subject.

 

[HARK!]

I eat bacon because it tastes nice.

Do you willingly break any other of YHWH's laws; because you like the sensation?

 

[DamianWarS]

If you can neither explain nor defend your position; that's OK. You don't have to keep changing the subject.

The subject is not food, it is "When a spirit comes, and tells me that it's OK to ignore YHWH's perfect Torah; how do I test that spirit?". I respond saying we test the spirits through God's word but we must weigh in all revelation and you ask for an example so I say circumcision. How is this changing the subject? If you wanted to talk about food then you should have made that clear before I brought it up. Are you refusing to discuss circumcision as it pertains to the OP?

 

[DamianWarS]

How do you view your question to relate to the topic of this thread??

Circumcision is a part of the torah is not? So if I feel led to not physically circumcise then how can this be tested as still in obedience with God?

there is no "instead of " for Israel to whom it was given.

Gen 17 shows us circumcision is a sign of an everlasting covenant between God and his people for generations upon generations and if not in the flesh that person is removed and has broken the covenant. It's pretty explicit and hard to misinterpret.

So how can we be spiritually circumsised but not in the flesh yet still be obedient to God? How do we test this knowing the words of Gen 17 and why do those other passages that you post speaking of a spiritual circumcision allow us to not value physical circumcised while still not breaking the covenant as Gen 17 tells us will happen when it is not in the flesh?

 

[HARK!]

I hope one day it will become more clear for you.
Be blessed

I wish the same for you.

Shalom.

 

[HARK!]

You shall write these words on you heart and put them in your mind (Deuteronomy 11:18-20)

I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; (Jeremiah 31:33).

The difference between the Law given through Moses and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus lies firstly in who does the writing of God's Law upon the heart.

If you have died, you have died to the law given through Moses. Those in Christ have died with Christ. Now they live with Christ. It's a new creation, all things have become new. The New Covenant in Christ is not according to that first covenant.

But the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

Hmmm.....Let's back up a verse and look at this in context:


Romans 8 (CLV)
1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, 2 for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.

What's this? Consequently? Paul is beginning to lay down a conclusion to a previously made argument. What is his argument?

Let's back up another verse.
24 A wretched man am I! What will rescue me out of this body of death? Grace! 25 I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Consequently, then, I myself, with the mind, indeed, am slaving for God's law, yet with the flesh for Sin's law."

Well, well. This better explains the dichotomy that Paul is presenting.

"Slaving for God's law" don't sound like the words of someone who leaving the Torah behind.

The law of sin and death that he speaks of, is obviously of Sin's law. Leave it to a lawyer to come up with all of this ambiguous legalese.

What is sin?

Sin is transgression of the law.

What law do you suppose that might be, Sin's law, or YHWH's law?

 

[HARK!]

But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6).

Read on...

12 So that the law, indeed, is holy, and the precept holy and just and good."

16 Now if what I am not willing, this I am doing, I am conceding that the law is ideal."

22 For I am gratified with the law of God as to the man within,

25 I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Consequently, then, I myself, with the mind, indeed, am slaving for God's law, yet with the flesh for Sin's law."

 

[nolidad]

We seem to keep coming back to scripture.

You initially said that we can test a message only by its' fruit; but in the very next sentence you seemed to indicate that we test the fruit with scripture. Now you state the standard is in the Bible.



The Torah is scripture. As a matter of fact, when the NT was being written; and it referred to scripture; the TaNaK was the only know scripture at that time.

So when a spirit tells me to ignore scripture; it would seem that you are telling me that the ultimate test of that message, is scripture itself. If so, that would mean that message fails on its' face.

Am I understanding you correctly?

The Torah is the Mosaic Laws in Scripture. The Tanakh is the Hebrew OT.

 

[nolidad]

Hmmm.....Let's back up a verse and look at this in context:


Romans 8 (CLV)
1 Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, 2 for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.

What's this? Consequently? Paul is beginning to lay down a conclusion to a previously made argument. What is his argument?

Let's back up another verse.
24 A wretched man am I! What will rescue me out of this body of death? Grace! 25 I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Consequently, then, I myself, with the mind, indeed, am slaving for God's law, yet with the flesh for Sin's law."

Well, well. This better explains the dichotomy that Paul is presenting.

"Slaving for God's law" don't sound like the words of someone who leaving the Torah behind.

The law of sin and death that he speaks of, is obviously of Sin's law. Leave it to a lawyer to come up with all of this ambiguous legalese.

What is sin?

Sin is transgression of the law.

What law do you suppose that might be, Sin's law, or YHWH's law?

And it is the law of Christ, not the law of Moses He is slaving after! Remember this is the same Paul who in Galatians warned against those who would have you submit to the law of Moses!

 

[HARK!]

The subject is not food, it is "When a spirit comes, and tells me that it's OK to ignore YHWH's perfect Torah; how do I test that spirit?". I respond saying we test the spirits through God's word but we must weigh in all revelation and you ask for an example so I say circumcision. How is this changing the subject? If you wanted to talk about food then you should have made that clear before I brought it up. Are you refusing to discuss circumcision as it pertains to the OP?

You brought up food, not I.

The conflict is that torah has a much wider definition than what Moses penned and God has more to say about abstaining from food (as an example) than what we read in the first 5 books of the Bible.

I asked you to give examples of the wider definition that the torah has to say about abstaining from food; than what Moses penned. This argument sounds bizarre to me, considering that the written Torah was given through Moses.

I asked you to give examples of what more YHWH has to say about abstaining from food outside of the Pentateuch.

This happened on page 5; and here you are on page 9 trying to change the subject and blaming me for not talking about the subject; without even backing up the subject you already brought up. You brought up the subject in relevance to the OP. Is what yuou put forth relevant or not? I find it difficult to reach a rational conclusion when the person I'm sharing a conversation with, keeps shifting the target.

I have no interest in attempting to nail jello to the wall.

Can you support your assertions; or did you just make it up?

 

[HARK!]

The Torah is the Mosaic Laws in Scripture. The Tanakh is the Hebrew OT.

TaNaK (Hebrew: תנ״ך), or Tanakh, is an acronym for the Hebrew Bible consisting of the initial Hebrew letters (T + N + K) of each of the text's three major parts. Since the ancient Hebrew langauge had no clear vowels, subsequent vowel sounds were added to the consonants resulting in the word TaNaK. The major portions of the Hebrew Bible represented by these three letters are:

1. Torah (תורה) meaning "Instruction" or "Law." Also called the Chumash חומש meaning: "The five"; "The five books of Moses." Also called the "Pentateuch." The Torah is often referred to as the law of the Jewish people.
2. Nevi'im (נביאים) meaning "Prophets." This term is associated with anything to do with the prophets.
3. Ketuvim (כתובים) meaning "Writings." This part of the Tanakh is further separated into different sections including a group of history books, wisdom books, poetry books and psalms.
   
   https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/TaNaK

 

[HARK!]

And it is the law of Christ, not the law of Moses He is slaving after!

Messiah's law is YHWH's law. YHWH wrote it down for Moses.

Remember this is the same Paul who in Galatians warned against those who would have you submit to the law of Moses!

Nonsense.

 

[nolidad]

(CLV) 2Ki 17:18
So Yahweh showed Himself exceedingly angered with Israel and put them away, out of His presence. None remained but the tribe of Judah by itself alone.

Nope it was two tribes plus remnants of the other ten that were in the land at the time of Jesus!

When the mixed multitude entered covenant at Sinai; did they become part of Israel?

They became proselytes and part of the Jewish religion, but they did not become children of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

(CLV) Ro 9:6
Now it is not such as that the word of God has lapsed, for not all those out of Israel, these are Israel;

(CLV) Ro 9:7
neither that Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac shall your seed be called."

(CLV) Ro 9:8
That is, that the children of the flesh, not these are the children of God, but the children of the promise is He reckoning for the seed.

(CLV) Jn 8:39
They answered and say to Him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus answered them, "If you are children of Abraham, did you ever do the works of Abraham?

Well first your use of the CLV is questionable as it is not widely recognized by the majority of Greek SCholars (biggest reason - it uses the secondary and tertiary definitions of words too often) It is not widely published nor accepted by followers of Jesus.

Ro. 9:7 Remember d Ishmael as well. Isaac is the child of promise! Remember the plains of Mamre!

 

[nolidad]

Hmmm.. two houses I wonder where he gets that.

Maybe he recognized that Israel had long been carried off into captivity when he wrote this.

I agree- God will bring both houses into one again Just like He also declared in Ezekiel!

No mention of Judah here, just Israel. The same is repeated in Hebrews. It's almost like YHWH wants us all to be one, like he intended with his people from the beginning.

God has always seen the twelve tribes as one house- though He reconized the fact they divided after David.

 

[HARK!]

Nope it was two tribes plus remnants of the other ten that were in the land at the time of Jesus!

Sorry, I'll just go with scripture.

(CLV) 2Ki 17:18
So Yahweh showed Himself exceedingly angered with Israel and put them away, out of His presence. None remained but the tribe of Judah by itself alone.

 

[DamianWarS]

I asked you to give examples of what more YHWH has to say about abstaining from food outside of the Pentateuch.

You asked "For example..." and there was nothing else. So I gave an example to the point and it was a justified response to the request given (since it was non-specific and that's how I understood it)

I understand, since you have made it clear, that what you really wanted was an example about abstaining from food (a good example would be Peter's dream) however I've asked since my response was still valid to not only the question given, my own point and the point of the OP that we continue on circumcision.

You have not commented on this but rather choose to comment on a bunch of other stuff and I'm confused why? I'm sorry for all the confusion but it's a simple solution and there is no need to go back and forth. So I'll ask again can we continue on circumcision? or is there a reason you wish to discuss specifically dietary laws or not speak about circumcision that you'd like to help me understand? I explained I didn't want to go back and forth and loose momentum to the points being made so that's was my desire to stick to the point I raised. I see now that was in vain because it seems to be the only thing you're interested in doing.

 

[HARK!]

They became proselytes and part of the Jewish religion, but they did not become children of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

The word "religion" appears nowhere in the TaNaK.

Where do you get this stuff?

Did not the mixed multitude enter the contract that YHWH made with Israel?

Who did YHWH make the contract with?

 

[nolidad]

Here is what a literal translation says on the subject:

(CLV) Ro 10:4
For Christ is the consummation of law for righteousness to everyone who is believing.

(CLV) Ro 10:5
For Moses is writing of the righteousness which is of law, that a man who does the same shall be living in it.

Well this takes on a different meaning when viewed in context; doesn't it?

From the same letter:

(CLV) Ro 3:31
Are we, then, nullifying law through faith? May it not be coming to that! Nay, we are sustaining law.

Surely Paul wasn't a schizophrenic, contradicting himself.

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

Surely Paul wasn't a heretic, contradicting Messiah.

Context is key my friend. Context is key!

Too bad that for Romans you did not finish the context:

Romans 10 King James Version (KJV)
10 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

Remember as James writes- if you violatre anyone of the 613 commands of Torah- you violate them all

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

and as Paul declared in Galatians- the law was never given to make one righteous- but to drive us to Jesus!

 

[HARK!]

Well first your use of the CLV is questionable as it is not widely recognized by the majority of Greek SCholars (biggest reason - it uses the secondary and tertiary definitions of words too often) It is not widely published nor accepted by followers of Jesus.

Ro. 9:7 Remember d Ishmael as well. Isaac is the child of promise! Remember the plains of Mamre!

WOW! Of course I notice that you offered nothing to back up this wild assertion.

Here is what the CLV says:

(CLV) Ro 9:7
neither that Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac shall your seed be called."

I must admit that it reads much differently than your translation.

Here are numerous other sources to compare:

New International Version
Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."

New Living Translation
Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too.

English Standard Version
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Berean Study Bible
Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.”

Berean Literal Bible
Nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children. Rather, "In Isaac your offspring will be named."

New American Standard Bible
nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

New King James Version
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

King James Bible
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Christian Standard Bible
Neither are all of Abraham's children his descendants. On the contrary, your offspring will be traced through Isaac.

Good News Translation
Nor are all of Abraham's descendants the children of God. God said to Abraham, "It is through Isaac that you will have the descendants I promised you."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants. On the contrary, your offspring will be traced through Isaac.

International Standard Version
and not all of Abraham's descendants are his true descendants. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that descendants will be named for you."

NET Bible
nor are all the children Abraham's true descendants; rather "through Isaac will your descendants be counted."

New Heart English Bible
Neither, because they are Abraham's descendants, are they all children. But, "In Isaac will your descendants be called."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Neither because they are of his seed are they all children of Abraham, because it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
or a descendant of Abraham. However, [as Scripture says,] "Through Isaac your descendants will carry on your name."

New American Standard 1977
neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”

King James 2000 Bible
Neither, because they are the descendants of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall your descendants be called.

American King James Version
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall your seed be called.

American Standard Version
neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Darby Bible Translation
nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children: but, In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee.

English Revised Version
neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Webster's Bible Translation
Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Weymouth New Testament
nor because they are Abraham's true children. But the promise was "Through Isaac shall your posterity be reckoned."

World English Bible
Neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children. But, "In Isaac will your seed be called."

Young's Literal Translation
nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children, but -- 'in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;'

 

[nolidad]

Messiah's law is YHWH's law. YHWH wrote it down for Moses.

Someday yo will enter the NT. No one is contradicitng that the 613 MOsaic Laws came from God. But they do not apply to the church! Nor can they save or make one righteous, including the ten.

2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

where does sin gets its strength to work in our lives????

1 Cor. 15:
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 4 King James Version (KJV)
4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,