Who gave the Law? Moses or Yahweh?

[Hank77]

If Timothy had been raised Jewish; he would have already been circumcised. He had no credibility with the local Jews because he was known to be Greek. BTW, regardless of what the Talmud says, the Torah makes it clear that one's heritage is of his father.

True he wasn't circumcised because his father was Greek/non-Jewish. That wouldn't stop his mother and grandmother from teaching him in Jewish beliefs. However, both of them had become believers that Jesus was the Messiah.
His credibility is exactly why Paul circumcised him before they went on Paul's mission to areas with many Jews.

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

 

[HARK!]

True he wasn't circumcised because his father was Greek/non-Jewish. That wouldn't stop his mother and grandmother from teaching him in Jewish beliefs. However, both of them had become believers that Jesus was the Messiah.
His credibility is exactly why Paul circumcised him before they went on Paul's mission to areas with many Jews.

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Certainly you aren't saying that Paul forced Timothy into circumcision for credibility's sake? Wouldn't that destroy Paul's credibility?

Galatians 2 (CLV)
1 Thereupon, after the lapse of fourteen years, I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also along with me." 2 Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations, yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught." 3 But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised." 4 Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us- "



I just covered this in post #56 in detail.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success". Joshua 1:7-8.

Hey!

This sounds and looks just like Yahweh's Word/ Instructions !



IT IS! IT IS !

 

[Josheb]

I see only one falw in that post.

lol thx

 

[dqhall]

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

Jesus said that

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

The Jews were trying to kill Jesus because he healed a man on the Sabbath. Jesus came to bring knowledge and healing to mankind. His peers wanted to enforce a law in the Torah required his execution for healing a man on Saturday the seventh day. That violated another Torah commandment against murder.

John 7:21 (WEB) Jesus answered them, “I did one work and you all marvel because of it. 22 Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a boy. 23 If a boy receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me, because I made a man completely healthy on the Sabbath? 24 Don’t judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

It is interesting to note the Egyptians practiced circumcision on adolescent boys before the Torah was written. Islam also requires circumcision.

In another passage the people wanted to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus went against this law from Moses’ Torah too (John 8:3-11).

 

[Andrewn]

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it.

There has been over 60 responses but nobody commented on this statement. It is clearly taught in the NT that the Law was given by angels and not by Yahweh himself.

 

[HARK!]

In another passage the people wanted to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus went against this law from Moses’ Torah too (John 8:3-11).

John 7:53-8:11
Passage omitted in the critical text. See Jesus and the woman taken in adultery
List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There has been over 60 responses but nobody commented on this statement. It is clearly taught in the NT that the Law was given by angels and not by Yahweh himself.

Did the angels you speak of , in context where?, did they disobey Yahweh
or
did they obey Yahweh ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is interesting to note the Egyptians practiced circumcision on adolescent boys before the Torah was written. Islam also requires circumcision.

Since this is not related to Yahweh's Revelation through His Word and through Jesus,

it is not interesting to me at all.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Did the angels you speak of , in context where?, did they disobey Yahweh
or
did they obey Yahweh ?

I don’t think it states anywhere that fallen angels were about the Father’s business.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don’t think it states anywhere that fallen angels were about the Father’s business.

I have not even thought about fallen angels in regards to this thread,
and certainly (don't remember) bringing up anything regarding fallen angels...
Why did you bring them up ?

 

[HARK!]

There has been over 60 responses but nobody commented on this statement. It is clearly taught in the NT that the Law was given by angels and not by Yahweh himself.

Leviticus 11
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them.
Leviticus 12
1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.
Leviticus 13
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying.
Leviticus 14
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.
33 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying.
Leviticus 15
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying.
Leviticus 16
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses
Leviticus 17
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.
Leviticus 18
CLV(i) 1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I have not even thought about fallen angels in regards to this thread,
and certainly (don't remember) bringing up anything regarding fallen angels...
Why did you bring them up ?

Because the messenger angels would have been about the Father’s business. He did send some to deceive yet the truth was always next to it for comparison.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because the messenger angels would have been about the Father’s business. He did send some to deceive yet the truth was always next to it for comparison.

So the angels who brought the good news OBEYED the Father ? That's what the question is/ was.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So the angels who brought the good news OBEYED the Father ? That's what the question is/ was.

The good news? At the birth of Jesus?

 

[Soyeong]

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

Hello,

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departed from it, so all of the Mosaic Law was given by God and it is called the Mosaic Law only because Moses played the role of the mediator in communicating God's laws to the Israelites. Likewise, God's law and the Mosaic Law are equated in Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

The Bible never uses the subcategory of ceremonial laws. Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and there are no examples of disobedience to any of the laws given in the OT being considered to be moral. If a spiritual lesson has no literal application, then it does not actually teach us anything about reality, and is therefore worthless.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, therefore he never tried to change or contradict the Mosaic Law, and if he had tried to do that, then he would have sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior. If Jesus had tried to make any changes, then he would have been in disagreement with the Father, and I see no indication of this. On the contrary, in John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach any changes to God's eternal law, and if we love him, then we will obey what the Father has taught. However, he did fulfill the law by correcting what was wrongly being taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night. If we believe that the Psalms are Scripture and therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will therefore share that view and consider anything less than delighting in obeying the Mosaic Law to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. In Romans 7:22, Paul also delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, so he was on the same page as David.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hello,

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departed from it, so all of the Mosaic Law was given by God and it is called the Mosaic Law only because Moses played the role of the mediator in communicating God's laws to the Israelites. Likewise, God's law and the Mosaic Law are equated in Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

The Bible never uses the subcategory of ceremonial laws. Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and there are no examples of disobedience to any of the laws given in the OT being considered to be moral. If a spiritual lesson has no literal application, then it does not actually teach us anything about reality, and is therefore worthless.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, therefore he never tried to change or contradict the Mosaic Law, and if he had tried to do that, then he would have sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior. If Jesus had tried to make any changes, then he would have been in disagreement with the Father, and I see no indication of this. On the contrary, in John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach any changes to God's eternal law, and if we love him, then we will obey what the Father has taught. However, he did fulfill the law by correcting what was wrongly being taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night. If we believe that the Psalms are Scripture and therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will therefore share it and consider anything less than delighting in obeying the Mosaic Law to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. In Romans 7:22, Paul also delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, so he was on the same page as David.

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man Romans 7:22 applies spiritually, does it not?

 

[Soyeong]

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man Romans 7:22 applies spiritually, does it not?

What is in our hearts flows through our actions, so there would be no point in only spiritual delighting on God's law without also physically delighting in it.

There are more ways to do what is righteous or sinful that God's law specifically prescribes or prohibits, but God's law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are the character traits of God. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle or if we have a character trait, then we will take physical actions that are examples of it in accordance with what God's law instructs. For example, if someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to physically take actions that expressed their love for their neighbor, then they would not be correctly understanding that principle.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What is in our hearts flows through our actions, so there would be no point in only spiritual delighting on God's law without also physically delighting in it.

There are more ways to do what is righteous or sinful that God's law specifically prescribes or prohibits, but God's law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are the character traits of God. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle or if we have a character trait, then we will take physical actions that are examples of it in accordance with what God's law instructs. For example, if someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to physically take actions that expressed their love for their neighbor, then they would not be correctly understanding that principle.

That just circles around to faith plus grace = works thru grace defined by the example of Christ.

 

[dqhall]

Since this is not related to Yahweh's Revelation through His Word and through Jesus,

it is not interesting to me at all.

Circumcision could have been copied from the Egyptians or imposed by the Egyptians who campaigned in Canaan. Some of the Ten Commandments were expressed in various texts of the Egyptian Book of the Dead long before Israel was mentioned in the Merneptah Stele. God did works not only among Judeans, but also among Gentiles. Buddha taught non-violence before Christ. Christ the Jew was superior, but now God is spirit and does not live in a temple built by hands.