Another set of questions.

[DeaconDean]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior.

First off, I am not here to make sport of, neither make fun of your beliefs. And above all, I mean no disrespect. I am simply asking for some answers for a project I am working on.

I come in respect, please, please know this above all else.

My questions are:

I am researching the "Law." To be exact, I am researching a section now entitled "The Law in Rabbinic Judaism."

I have ran across a statement I'm not 100% clear on its meaning. So I am here to ask the scholars here to enlighten me.

Let me quote what puzzles me:

Even if a man learns Scripture and the Mishnah, but does not serve with a wise man (as a pupil) he is regarded as a `am ha' arez. He who has learned Scripture without the Mishnah is regarded as bor. But he who has learned neither Scripture nor Mishnah comes under e.g., Prv. 24:20, bSota, 22a.

Ok, here are my questions:


What is "Mishnah?"
What is "`am ha' arez?
What is "bor?"
Is the reference to Prv. 24:20 saying that one who ignores studying as a pupil, or neglects studying at all, then they shall be counted with the evil, and their lamp will be put out along with the wicked?And, as a sidebar question, a lot of the Rabbis I see quoted have "ben" as a "title?" in their name, i.e., Jochanan ben Zakkai. Is it a title, or is it actually part of the name or what. I have seen in my reference works, most of the Rabbis have this, could you explain this to me?

Thank you for your patience and pardon my ignorance.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[johnd]

What is "Mishnah?"
What is "`am ha' arez?
What is "bor?"
Is the reference to Prv. 24:20 saying that one who ignores studying as a pupil, or neglects studying at all, then they shall be counted with the evil, and their lamp will be put out along with the wicked? 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

2.http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O96-AmHaAretz.html

3. Can't find a wiki ref... basically it is a cistern as opposed to a flowing well (be'er)... stagnate, limited... you get the idea...

4. Proverbs 24:20 and Sota 22a of the Talmud (quote from Bible Gateway:

"His teaching prompts the question, How did this man get such learning without having studied? (7:15). He had not studied under a rabbi, nor had he been in a rabbinic school. He did not support his teaching by appealing to recognized teachers, yet his teaching made use of rabbinic-style arguments, as is evident later in this section. In the Talmud (b. Sota 22a) it is said that the person who studied the Scriptures and even the Mishnah but yet "did not attend upon Rabbinical scholars" is no better than an 'am ha'arets--one of the "people of the land" who are cursed because they do not keep the law with the strictness of the Pharisees. This text from the Talmud is dated later than the New Testament, but the sentiment was current in the days of Jesus, and indeed it is reflected in this very story (7:49)."

And "ben" means "son of" can mean literal or direct son or grandson or great great great great grandson etc. It can mean idiomatically the pupil of a certain prophet or school of thought...

[johnd]

In my encounters with these kinds of folks, I remind them that their elite perspective is flawed in that there had to be a point in history that these writings and disciplines did not exist and it had to begin from scratch...

So by their own definition, their philosophy is disqualified at its founding. There has to have been a point when people began following the teaching of those who did not meet the very criteria they set out to disqualify others who did not "do as they do."

It pays to base all truth on the word of God rather than the word of man.

[johnd]

Don't be intimidated by them. Just point out where their reasoning is flawed. This usually shuts them up.

It's just another way of doing what they accuse Christians of doing... they claim Christians base their belief in Jesus on the New Testament alone... which the non-messianic Jew rejects the same way a Christian would the Book of Mormon. For them it is the Mishnah, being trained in their philosophy and methods for interpreting scripture. It's the same thing they accuse others of doing.

And what you have here between all three (non-messianic Jews, Mormons, and Christians) the claim that their written and scholastic basis for why they believe what they believe is divinely inspired... when only the New Testament can prove this based on the Tanakh (Old Testament) itself. For the scriptures referred to in the NT are the OT scriptures themselves.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Acts 17:2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The NT was canonized as scripture as well (based on the OT scriptures). Believers should learn how to witness Yeshua ben David (Jesus the Son of David) from the OT. It is because we can and that this who the OT points to that those who refuse to believe in Yeshua must concoct such "scholarly" qualifications in schools of thought which might as well be entitled "why Yeshua isn't the Messiah despite what the Bible says..." Whether they realize it or not they are placing their writings and scholarship above the Tanakh itself in some vain attempt to refute the NT.

[johnd]

I do not desperate teaching or even researching any of these schools of thought or their writings. In fact, most are an interesting study at any apologetics academy or web site. Just remember to leave the authority in the Bible (the proven word of God), and you'll be fine.

[HaReb]

As I was told when I started to train - if you want to understand Y'shua properly, you have to understand the Scripture that he was teaching, properly! The quote from Timothy, above, reminds us that 'all Scripture is G_d breathed... ', but we have to realise that the Scripture being referred to was NOT the latter testament! This is where many go wrong in the Church - they assume that it refers ONLY to the latter testament. A little thought shows that NOT to be the case; Y'shua and his talmidim only ever taught the earlier testament. If this truth were taken on board we would have all the Feast days for both Christians and Jews aligned perfectly and the earlier Testament would be taught as equal to the latter. The Church gives its whole hearted assent to the so called 10 commandments but carefully ignores the one about the Sabbath - inconsistency abounds when you get the balance wrong.

[Gwenyfur]

Hi Dean! Glad to see you here and gettin' answers from those smarter than I am :D

[DeaconDean]

Hi Gweny, doesn't it say:

"Seek and ye shall find, ask, and ye shall be told, knock and it will be opened"

Thank you again for your responses. As I said, I am not here to debate, but seek enlightenment.

Thank you all for your timely responses, it is greatly appreciated.

If there any more who would care to weigh in on this, I would appreciate that as well.

You just would not believe the amount of Jewish Rabbinic techings I have had to muddle through.

Sometimes it feels like it was knee deep.

Again, thank you all.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[HaReb]

DD - what are you studying for - what is the Course name?

[HaReb]

Gwenyfur - I don't know whether it is just me and the fact that I am prone to migraine attacks, usually because of bright light(s), but I find it very hard to read your posts because of the flashing avatar :( :)

[DeaconDean]

DD - what are you studying for - what is the Course name?

As Gweny will tell you, this is not a course per se.

I got involved in a discussion in another area, and this led me to further independant study on the Greek word nomoV and its application(s) as it pertains to the Christain.

I have currently been studying this topic for the last 7 months.

Since October of last year.

So far, I have been very blessed in this study, and the Lord has opened my eyes to some very wonderful revelations.

I hope to wrap up my reading and note taking as early as next week. Now how long it will take me to correlate all my notes is hard to say. I hope to have an outline and a draft of my paper "The Law and the Christain" perhaps by the end of this year or early next year.

Who knows, I plan on attending Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary sometime in the future to try and get my Masters in Theology, maybe I can use this as my "thesis paper."

Any rate, thanks again guys for your responses.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

Gwenyfur - I don't know whether it is just me and the fact that I am prone to migraine attacks, usually because of bright light(s), but I find it very hard to read your posts because of the flashing avatar :( :)
I'll make one that doesn't flash...
...it's part of the hurry up with the upgrade campaign for fixing CF :)

but I'll make one that doesn't flash :)

(in reality, it's too much for me too...I'm more of a glittery type than a disco ball type :D:D)

[HaReb]

maybe I can use this as my "thesis paper."

I don't want to disappoint you but I doubt it, if you have used it elsewhere and it has been written without University supervision of the research!

[HaReb]

but I'll make one that doesn't flash


Thanks so much!

[johnd]

... Who knows, I plan on attending Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary sometime in the future to try and get my Masters in Theology, maybe I can use this as my "thesis paper."

Any rate, thanks again guys for your responses.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You are welcome. But do remember what HaReb and I said about the Old Testament being the scriptures extant in the day our Lord walked the earth.

Beware such teachings in the SBTS as the Documentary Hypothesis (deutero and trito Isaiah) and other such veins of venom. Just because it is Christian, or is among the "orthodox" denominations does not mean there isn't a certain amount of philosophical training up of drones like in the Jewish school of thought you are studying.

We must take God at his word. We must take his side of the argument. We must not tamper with the Bible.

[DeaconDean]

I don't want to disappoint you but I doubt it, if you have used it elsewhere and it has been written without University supervision of the research!

None of the "papers" I have written thus far have been used for anything other than my own use.

And as to University supervision, my papers have been formatted according to The Chicago Manual of Style, and Kate Turbian's "A Manual for Writers."

One of my seminary teachers recomended that I start writting according to these so I could be used to it by the time I did start in full time at school.

Several of the "papers" I have already written are in the archives of articles at christcanteredforums.com.

At any rate, my papers are written according to the very latest college requirments.

Just a "habit" I have picked up. (Thanks to Dr. James Willingham, Phd., D-Min)

At any rate, its just the way I study. I don't approach the Word of God lightly.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[HaReb]

Lucky you, indeed!

For my MA I have to have regular external supervision by a PhD holder and, at the end, I have to sign to say that the work is all my own and has not been used elsewhere for any other academic purpose. I would never be allowed to put in it on a web site and, therefore, publish it before the degree is awarded.

Even for my first degree (BA), I had to assign copyright of my work to the University, to prevent it being re-used elsewhere.

[DeaconDean]

You are welcome. But do remember what HaReb and I said about the Old Testament being the scriptures extant in the day our Lord walked the earth.

Beware such teachings in the SBTS as the Documentary Hypothesis (deutero and trito Isaiah) and other such veins of venom. Just because it is Christian, or is among the "orthodox" denominations does not mean there isn't a certain amount of philosophical training up of drones like in the Jewish school of thought you are studying.

We must take God at his word. We must take his side of the argument. We must not tamper with the Bible.

I don't.

Pne of my early seminary classes was "The Prophesy of Isaiah."

And I just got through looking at the "J," "E," "D," and "P" theory. And the only reason I did that was becuse some of the material I have made reference to it.

I know about the "scriptures" and the way Jesus viewed them as "authoritative."

Believe me, I have quoted what you guys have said numerous times in many a debate with Catholics.

I just have a different view of the Law than you do but I'm not here to debate that or even discuss that.

I'm just researching how the Rabbis of Jesus' time, viewed the "Torah."

As Jochanan ben Zakkai relates:

In bShab., 31a it is recounted that a Gentile asked Hillel whether he could tell him the Law while he stood on one foot, and Hillel answered: "What you would not have done to you, do not to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah. All else is exposition. Go and learn it."

Anywho, thanks for all your replies.

God Bless

Till all are one.

(BTW: Most of the time, I usually send a "draft" of my work to Dr. Willingham for him to critique for me. As I have told Gweny many times, I love theology and studying it)

[HaReb]

Blessings to you, DD!

[ChavaK]

Yes a "bor" is a pit, but alternately it can mean "prison"...

[Kris10leigh]

DD, I think your research is very noble! Good luck to you!

[Lulav]

Discussion is always good, it is the Jewish way, I pray no one is searching for info/ammo to use to 'shut someone up'. :(

[johnd]

Discussion is always good, it is the Jewish way, I pray no one is searching for info/ammo to use to 'shut someone up'. :(

Only meant to mean in the sense of answering them with truth.

Sometimes being given the benefit of the doubt is rare... :sigh:

[johnd]

My view of "the Law" is:

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And what may seem to be my inordinate keeping of the Law while under Grace is actually living out the Jewishness of the faith that Gentile extremists (well meaning or not) tried to strip from the faith in a misguided zeal to rid everything Jewish from the faith in the name of anti-legalism.

For example, the Last Supper is by all indications the Passover Seder with explanations of the root meaning of the event described generally in New Testament passages.

And at the same time I point out to Messianics where there is inordinate mimicking of non-Messianic Jews for no other reason that these are the practices of Jews.

This is where (I believe) the differences you mention are. And resolving these will make the two become one much faster (in my interpretation of scripture and historic events ).

God bless!

[HaReb]

Ok that post I just typed out has disappeared!

Try again...

Without the Law there is no need for grace or for Y'shua. Both are given us so that when we transgress the Law and truly repent, grace is poured out and covers the offense so that it is not brought to mind by G_d again.

If there is no Law then, clearly, there need be no repentance - as we wouldn't know we had done wrong - and if there is no need for repentance there was no need for Y'shua and if there is no need for him, there is no need for the grace he pours out. Pure, simple logic that seems to escape those who say that we live not by the Law which, they say, Sha'ul said is no longer in effect, but by faith/grace.

Sha'ul says very explicitly in Acts 24 that he believes in everything in the 'earlier testament'.

[HaReb]

There is no such thing as The Last Supper! It is a Passover seder and Y'shua says just that in the gospels. Yochanan supports that by pointing out the fact of the Great Shabbat, not as Christians believe - the weekly shabbat. He certainly didn't say, "go and get the Last Supper ready", though 1000's of Christians do not believe the link. Mind you, he didn't die on Good Friday, either!

I think many Christians would accept, in the face of growing Biblical study/understanding that Christmas, Easter, Communion etc are at odds with Scripture but...how do you change two millenia of wrong teaching? That is a serious question! Over to you folk for suggestions...

[DeaconDean]

edited so as not to be considered debating.

(my bad)

[Kris10leigh]

There is no such thing as The Last Supper!
This comes up frequently, no? Can't "the last supper" simply be looked at as a vocabulary word that no one likes? For instance, I don't like the words "Jehovah's Witnesses", but I know what is meant when the words are used. (I have a hard time pronouncing it. ^_^ Among other things...) Everyone knows what is meant by "the last supper" even if we don't like that it is called that.

Just my thoughts. :holy:

[johnd]

The Law still stands as the measure / standard of good and evil. It can drive us to the truth that we need mercy not justice. We need grace rather than exoneration.

What Deacon refers to (unless I am mistaken) is the mistaken Christian idea that keeping any part of the Law (Shabbos, Seder, etc.) is legalism. What I was getting at is keeping Sabbath or Seder or Kosher is no more legalistic than going to Church on Sunday, observing communion, or eating a healthy diet and exercising to keep God's temple healthy.

The former is only doing so by God's prescription, the latter by gentile interpretation of God's prescription.

And there are some things that even the former does only by the traditions of men as well, which I usually point out when they make a point of enforcing it upon others.

There is no such thing as The Last Supper! It is a Passover seder and Y'shua says just that in the gospels. Yochanan supports that by pointing out the fact of the Great Shabbat, not as Christians believe - the weekly shabbat. He certainly didn't say, "go and get the Last Supper ready", though 1000's of Christians do not believe the link. Mind you, he didn't die on Good Friday, either!

I think many Christians would accept, in the face of growing Biblical study/understanding that Christmas, Easter, Communion etc are at odds with Scripture but...how do you change two millennia of wrong teaching? That is a serious question! Over to you folk for suggestions...

On these things we agree.

I have made the case here (somewhere) that Roman Emperor Constantine was not awestruck with the truth of Christ as he was desirous of the cohesiveness of burgeoning Christianity (which his crumbling empire sorely lacked). He may have stopped open season on Christians... but he died a sun worshiper.

As evidenced by his mother's erroneous landmark churches, the intention was to build a state religion based on the say-so of the heads of that state. This is how you end up with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (comemorating the death and burial of Christ) on the wrong side of the Holy City and the church on the Sinai peninsula rather than the Arabian peninsula commemorating the giving of the Law.

By the 10th Century CE the Empire itself morphed into that Church.

And the Protestant movement did not Reform nearly enough. But as was so often the case in Judaism, God made certain concessions that despite these things he preserved a remnant who believe in the authentic Jesus (Yeshua).

I have been dedicated for sometime to removing the ear of truth from the husk of human subterfuge in both camps (Christian and Jewish). For though there is merit (medical and otherwise) in circumcision (for example) it is the circumcision of the heart the Lord had been driving at all along. And though there is spiritual and physical and emotional merit in keeping Sabbath, we live in the Sabbath age (yom sheva) wherein we enter into the rest and peace of Messiah once for all through faith in him by the cleansing of his blood and his resurrection from the dead.

And when Yeshua the Jewish Messiah was keeping the Passover Seder he himself prescribed to Moses in his preincarnate form, he held up the unleavened bread and said "This, this is my body." And he raised the cup and said "This is the New Covenant in my blood."

That's how the Romanized Church reads the NT accounts... but these were specific portions of the meal which not only described the Hebrew deliverance from Egyptian slavery but human deliverance from the slavery to sin and death. And it behooves the believer to look more deeply into which piece of unleavened bread at what point and which cup at what point to the order the entire meal represented.

Of course this was true of all the Jewish feasts... every one of which points to Messiah.

This is why the devil, who sought to obscure these things got the Romaizers into such a zeal to rid the faith of all things Jewish. It hid truth and substituted non truth in tradition and human interferences.

An old trick of the devil's because he did the same thing in Judaism to the point that <official> Judaism rejected the very Messiah Judaism was (in part) created for. This is what Yeshua was addressing in Matthew 13 which was essentially his state of the union address for Judaism.

This had the effect of placing the truth in the hands of the Gentiles who masked it with traditions and incorporated paganism (like Saturnalia and Astarte) which made it all the more unappealing to the Jewish people down through the millennia. It's like a 2000 year nightmare... soon to come to a close.

[visionary]

Like I said, I'm not here to debate "my view" of the Law.

My view is however, as James put it to Paul:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." -Acts 15:19-20 (KJV)

Other than the Decalogue, which is the revealed will of God for all mankind, these are the only constraints placed upon me, a Gentile.

And the part on the "last supper" is pure symatics anyway. That was the "last supper" our Lord shared with the disciples until after His resurrection. And even at that, we don't celebrate that. Again, another minor point.



Now before I say this, please know that I do have the utmost respect for Gwenyfur, but, we have had several discussions on this topic, and her point to me is her observance of traditional Hebrew feasts and festivals.

Which in your case is perfectly well. But for me, it isn't. Her dedication is great, but she bases this on God's command of it being "perpetual." Which once again, is perfectly fine in her case. And that was part of the reasoning that the "believing pharisees" at the first Apostolic council brought up against Paul.

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." -Acts 15:5 (KJV)

And that was the point of the first Apostolic council meeting, to decide which "Laws" applied to whom.

And Paul further explains to the Galatians in chapter 2 just what the ruling of the council was:



Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromely, Translator, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, nomoV, p. 1065-1066

It is perfectly fine for you to continue to do as you have in the tradition of your fathers, but it is not fine me to come and cause a disruption of your observance, just because that does not apply to me, should we ever happen to worship together.

I mean, I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, and so are you. Will we not both or collectively be praising our Lord one day for the work He did on our behalf on the cross on Calvary?

We sure will!

Any how, sorry to have gotten side-tracked.

I really do appreciate all the help and notes you guys have given me.

And I do hope I have not wore out my welcome here.

God BLess

Till all are one.In order for you to be free to make this comment, I have moved your thread up into debate.

[visionary]

My view is however, as James put it to Paul:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." -Acts 15:19-20 (KJV)Don't forget the context..... Those who in the Jerusalem council prescribed this amount for the gentiles to start on the holy life in Yeshua... also expect these gentiles to be in the synagogue every sabbath learning...

Acts 15:21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

[HaReb]

And the part on the "last supper" is pure symatics anyway. That was the "last supper" our Lord shared with the disciples until after His resurrection. And even at that, we don't celebrate that. Again, another minor point

But its acceptance as a legitimate phrase removes, further, the concept of Passover, which it is, to something that has no connection with Passover at all or, if it has, it is the last one (ie the Last Supper) which Christ then abolished in favour of communion, so the argument goes! It is most certainly not merely a case of semantics.

Re the Law. It is interesting that Christians claim to observe the so called 10 commandments to the letter (legalism?), not just the Spirit but... if you challenge them about the one that says you shall keep the Sabbath then you get the old argument that that was for the Jews, alone, and it no longer applies to us, because Jesus changed it and Paul says so!! So there are, effectively, just 9 Commandments.

It is not just about anti-legalism, it is about very selective adherence in my opinion - bit like the rich young ruler :)

[A_Pioneer]

Hi Gweny, doesn't it say:

"Seek and ye shall find, ask, and ye shall be told, knock and it will be opened"

Thank you again for your responses. As I said, I am not here to debate, but seek enlightenment.

Thank you all for your timely responses, it is greatly appreciated.

If there any more who would care to weigh in on this, I would appreciate that as well.

You just would not believe the amount of Jewish Rabbinic techings I have had to muddle through.

Sometimes it feels like it was knee deep.

Again, thank you all.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Food for thought; Mt 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

What was missing in their theology?

[DeaconDean]

In order for you to be free to make this comment, I have moved your thread up into debate.

My apologies.

I shall not comment again.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Kris10leigh]

My apologies.

I shall not comment again.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Hello! ;) I'm pretty sure you have not offended anyone. I think this thread just started to cross the line into debate. You're fine to continue now that the thread has been moved. :thumbsup:

I'm reading...just have little to contribute.

[ContraMundum]

Personally, I think that the verse "All scripture is God breathed" applies to the whole of the canon, not just the canon as it was when Paul wrote to Timothy, but all scripture that would follow until the close of the canon. In other words, the statement is an axiom, applicable to all which is, or would become scripture. Once something is proven to be God breathed, it is affirmed to be scripture. As an axiom, this becomes a proposition that is self-evident.

In other words, it is an immutable fact that all scripture is God-breathed, and in addition to the Tanach the text of the NT would be added, also being God breathed. Thus Paul is telling Timothy to hold on to the scripture as he knew it, but also to his own admonition to do so. His admonition - in fact this whole letter- would eventually be revealed to have been inspired as well. So, for us this side of the Cross, we are to hold to the whole canon of scripture as inspired by God.

[Lulav]

Where in the Tanach are there letters included?

[HaReb]

Where in the Tanach are there letters included?


Can you unpack this question a bit Lulav? I think I know what you are asking but I'm not too sure.

[HaReb]

but all scripture that would follow until the close of the canon


So what is the difference, then, between the words Paul spoke that were NOT of G_d by his own admission, and those he spoke on behalf of G_d - are both Scripture, the word of man and the word of G_d?

[ContraMundum]

So what is the difference, then, between the words Paul spoke that were NOT of G_d by his own admission, and those he spoke on behalf of G_d - are both Scripture, the word of man and the word of G_d?

Ummm.....isn't that kind of rhetorical for a question? The answer is in the question- isn't it obvious that when Paul states things as his own words, then we are to take them as his? It's an exegetical question, really.

[ContraMundum]

Where in the Tanach are there letters included?

:scratch:

I don't think anyone is saying that there are letters in the Tanach. The "letter" I was referring to is the Letter to Timothy- now in the canon and thus God-breathed.

[Lulav]

Can you unpack this question a bit Lulav? I think I know what you are asking but I'm not too sure.Contra says he believes that all scripture includes the new testament writings which are mainly composed of letters to specific people only in answer to their specific problems. Now while good to study for seeing how one man handles certain problems in their different communities I don't believe these have as much weight as those things told by G-d through Yeshua to write down, like the gospels, like the Revelation. And certainly not as much weight as TaNacK. So I asked where in tanack do we see anything that has been canonized as being in the form of a letter. :)

So what is the difference, then, between the words Paul spoke that were NOT of G_d by his own admission, and those he spoke on behalf of G_d - are both Scripture, the word of man and the word of G_d? Exactly! and he admits that there are things that are just his opinion, but should we go one step further and trust that he admitted all? Especially when it seems to be contradictory to what Yeshua taught?

Ummm.....isn't that kind of rhetorical for a question? The answer is in the question- isn't it obvious that when Paul states things as his own words, then we are to take them as his? It's an exegetical question, really. See my answer to HR, I don't think its that obvious, only when he wants it to be but do we trust any man to be 100% honest? Shouldn't our faith be rightly applied?

:scratch:

I don't think anyone is saying that there are letters in the Tanach. The "letter" I was referring to is the Letter to Timothy- now in the canon and thus God-breathed. Yes, I know, you are saying these letters are G-d breathed and I am saying how do we know this? Where in TaNacK do we see something to say,. OK, this is similar so it can be counted as gospel?

[HaReb]

CM, then ALL Scripture, if we assume that term to include the latter testament, cannot be G_d breathed, since Sha'ul's own words appear there with apparent equal authority to G_d's word in the eyes of many.

I have asked this question a number of times in various situations - it is an interesting thought. Are the words that he spoke of his own freewill, Scripture, as many would claim, or are they not! If they are not is there in the whole book words that men have spoken in similar fashion, and thus may not be G_d's own words, and why were they included.

A more fundamental question than just a matter of exegesis, I would say.

[Lulav]

HaReb did I answer your question???

[HaReb]

Lulav,

I'm so sorry I missed you out! We have a young Spanish girl staying with us at the moment as an exchange when my daughter went to Spain. trouble is, we spent hours sorting out an intinerary but she has just decided she doesn't want to do any of that! So much trouble for one so young! Driving me and mine to distraction!

Anyway - yes, as you will see from my reply to CM we are travelling the same road. I have often asked the question (at least once on this forum) whether the latter testament is actually Scripture in the same sense that the Tanach is, or is it a series a halachic decisions on the earlier testament by Rebs Y'shua and Sha'ul, given that Y'shua often says, "You know it is written thus, but I say......" And Sha'ul's amazing comments on many issues that the believers were wanting answered at that point. I can even imagine Nakdimon in Yochanon 3 raising his hands in typical Jewish fashion when Y'shua says he must be born again and saying, "oy vey, my son, you want that I go back into my mother's womb and try again?". Not that I think he particularly doubted - just the way of responding that was the done thing in those days. Y'shua picks him up on it and takes the opportunity to tell him he jolly well ought to know what Y'shua meant, given his high office. We lose so much in the latter testament because we ignore the cultural emphases that were prevalent in life at that time. Just as the rich young ruler said he had obeyed the Law since he was a child and Y'shua's silence on the other '10 Commandments' implies that the guy hadn't followed the ones that relate to G_d, so he is told by Y'shua, who had a twinkle in his eye, that he should go and sell all his bits and follow Y'shua - then he would learn the remaining ones, and how to fulfil them, too, without the trappings of wealth to hold him back... and so I could go on etc etc

[Lulav]

:D Yes, I can see that too! May it be called the ultimate commontary on Torah with some added prophecies thrown in to finnish off ?

Sorry for your distraction, I just wanted to make sure I explalined well enough, I have my own distractions of mind fog. :blush:

Chag Sameach! HaBikkarim

[Lulav]

Funny right after I answered you, my husband was reading in the bible and strangely he read out loud and this jumped out at me. The ultimate showdown with the sword of the word, by the Word himself. He defines the word right here, I believe.

1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said,It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the L-rd thy G-d.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


This passage shows that to combat haSatan Yeshua used the written word, even though HaSatan tried to use it against him, as he knows it well too, but he doesn't know how to properly use it.

In many cases when speaking to those who were trying to trick him, who were being given these questions by the same one, he also said, it is written.
I don't think he ever said, it will be written.:)

The word must proceed out of the mouth of G-d.

One argument about the letters is that as far as I recall none says Thus saith the L-RD or a direction that the L-RD told them to write this down.

We see that with the prophets, and we see even in Revelation Yeshua told John what to write and even some things he heard to Not write them down. Out of the mouth of G-d..................

[ContraMundum]

CM, then ALL Scripture, if we assume that term to include the latter testament, cannot be G_d breathed, since Sha'ul's own words appear there with apparent equal authority to G_d's word in the eyes of many.

You'd have to admit that this is merely an interpretive matter, then, when one is forced to decide what part of the text is God breathed and which part is not. This of course is the end of the modern liberal wedge, and is open to much abuse.

Paul's "own words" are in complete agreement with his dogmas. They are the logical progressive of the foundational truths. IOW- they are in essence of the same root.

All scripture, including Paul's own words, are God breathed, but some are asking if they are of equal authority? Clearly, as you and Lulav have demonstrated, many people on this forum would say no- and that's a very reasonable position. Others say they are, indeed because of their inclusion in the canon- which ultimately was a decision of the ekklesia. I say that even his own words are inspired, canonical and binding. For matters of praxis, and for an example they are of equal authority, although their way of inspiration may be different.

What I'm saying is that even Paul's own words are God breathed, and thus authoratative, but are taken into the context of the rest of the text- eg. the dogmas behind the rulings in his "own words" are the source, and they come from God. Exegetically, at no stage are they any different than the inspired dogma behind them, so this pretty much puts the matter to rest, as I see it.

I have asked this question a number of times in various situations - it is an interesting thought. Are the words that he spoke of his own freewill, Scripture, as many would claim, or are they not! If they are not is there in the whole book words that men have spoken in similar fashion, and thus may not be G_d's own words, and why were they included.

A more fundamental question than just a matter of exegesis, I would say.I would say that it is an exegetical problem. The first question you have to ask is whether or not Paul is incorrect when he states his own words (which is actually quite rare anyway). I say no, he is not incorrect, as his words are not mere opinion but clear instructions to those historically under his authority, and thus by de facto, the ekklesia at large. His own words are still applicable, agreeable to the text and the Faith of the people of God, and therefore, they are obviously able to be within the canon of scripture. They are inspired, but perhaps not in the manner of the rest of the text.

If you take the other angle, which is what some do, that some texts are of greater inspiration than others, or that some texts are not inspired at all, then people are left to decide by themselves which bits of scripture they think are more important than others, and it all becomes rather arbitrary and this is the beginning of the road to modernism and liberalism. Also, this leads to schism, denominationism and the "every man for himself" religion that infects our era. We, as believers, need to put such unbelief to the sword, IMHO. One can't go wrong if one follows Paul's words as they are preserved to us. Conversely, one can go wrong if we decide on an individual basis that they don't apply to oneself for whatever reason or prejudice we might have. I'm sure you'd agree.

[HaReb]

The only thing that worries me about that view CM is that it was only a generation or two after that when Sunday worship was ordered and things like Christmas and Easter came into being. How sound was their theology to determine which books should, or should not, be allowed? Especially as they had division among themselves about which should and which should not be inlcuded anyway.

[visionary]

The only thing that worries me about that view CM is that it was only a generation or two after that when Sunday worship was ordered and things like Christmas and Easter came into being. How sound was their theology to determine which books should, or should not, be allowed? Especially as they had division among themselves about which should and which should not be inlcuded anyway.Are you thinking this is a branch of faith (aka cannon that which is private letters) that sticks out too far in a direction that the Lord may cut off?

Since Paul wrote these letters, I am glad they (I don't care who) put them where they are available for all to read. They are like letters John wrote, Peter wrote, Luke wrote and Jude wrote. All have inspired messages contained within that have helped me on my spiritual journey.

There are sections in the Tanach that also are like personal comments that are not inspired writtings of God, but help with the flow and understanding of the truth.

[johnd]

Are you calling into question the NT or portions in it (specifically the letters)?

For we must be mindful that the OFFICIAL channels of Judaism were clogged up with the doctrines of the Sanhedrin which ultimately reject Yeshua. So, the Ruach HaKodesh used other venues for inspiring holy writ... like the accumulation of the four Gospels (one of which along with the book of Acts were essentially Paul's trial documents for his appeal to Ceasar).

You will recall even in the Tanakh there were wandering (sometimes nude) prophets and priests and some vagabonds... Not all came through (official) channels yet all were equally inspired words of God.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[HaReb]

JohnD

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we ditch the Scriptures - but these are questions that need to be tackled. It does say in 1 Cor. 11:19 that we shall have disagreements, if only to show who is right - it is in this spirit that I raised the questions because they have been asked of me before.

[Tishri1]

Hi Dean Good to see you here:) Welcome to my dear friend:hug:

[ContraMundum]

The only thing that worries me about that view CM is that it was only a generation or two after that when Sunday worship was ordered and things like Christmas and Easter came into being. How sound was their theology to determine which books should, or should not, be allowed? Especially as they had division among themselves about which should and which should not be inlcuded anyway.

I don't really interpret history that way, and even if I did, it could have no bearing on the text, which stands on its own merit. Abuse of something does not invalidate its essence.

[johnd]

JohnD

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we ditch the Scriptures - but these are questions that need to be tackled. It does say in 1 Cor. 11:19 that we shall have disagreements, if only to show who is right - it is in this spirit that I raised the questions because they have been asked of me before.

Alright.

[kivi]

Don't forget the context..... Those who in the Jerusalem council prescribed this amount for the gentiles to start on the holy life in Yeshua... also expect these gentiles to be in the synagogue every sabbath learning...

Acts 15:21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
It should be noted that the requirements you refer to are just a quick outline of the Torah of Noach, which is incombant on all humans.

The Seven main categories of the Torah of Naoch are:

Prohibition of idol-worship.
Prohibition of blasphemy.
Prohibition of theft.
Prohibition of murder.
Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
Prohibition of eating meat cut from living animal.
Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 6 categories.

[visionary]

It should be noted that the requirements you refer to are just a quick outline of the Torah of Noach, which is incombant on all humans.

The Seven main categories of the Torah of Naoch are:

Prohibition of idol-worship.
Prohibition of blasphemy.
Prohibition of theft.
Prohibition of murder.
Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
Prohibition of eating meat cut from living animal.
Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 6 categories.There isn't enough history to validate Noahide... even if the proponents want to... so I do not think you can tag it here... until that happens.

[kivi]

There isn't enough history to validate Noahide... even if the proponents want to... so I do not think you can tag it here... until that happens.
Could you give an example of what sort of historic evidence you would think is appropriate in the matter of the Torah of Noach?

[visionary]

how old is the most historical document on Noahhide laws that you can find?

[kivi]

how old is the most historical document on Noahhide laws that you can find?
No recorded and complete document is much older than 1000-1500 years as far as Jewish records are concerned. Before that, all you get is fragments. The canonization of the text of the Torah [not the acutual document] goes through several stages, especially since Jewish record keeping and generational transmission remains primarily oral/memorization and was much much more so before the printing press. So, you have the canonization of the Chumash [the 5 Books of Moses] by Joshua and the Elders about 1300 BCE, the rest of the Tanach by the Men of the Great Assembly [about 400-200 BCE] and the Babyonian Talmud by about 600 CE and the post Talmudic Responsa and codifications on-going. You will find a direct reference to the Torah of Noach in Genesis 9:1-17; of course, commentaries of the Talmud, Rambam [1100 CE] and Rashi [1000 CE] 'flesh' out the bare bones of the Chumash.

[Lulav]

You'd have to admit that this is merely an interpretive matter, then, when one is forced to decide what part of the text is God breathed and which part is not. This of course is the end of the modern liberal wedge, and is open to much abuse.

Paul's "own words" are in complete agreement with his dogmas. They are the logical progressive of the foundational truths. IOW- they are in essence of the same root.

All scripture, including Paul's own words, are God breathed, but some are asking if they are of equal authority? Clearly, as you and Lulav have demonstrated, many people on this forum would say no- and that's a very reasonable position. Others say they are, indeed because of their inclusion in the canon- which ultimately was a decision of the ekklesia. I say that even his own words are inspired, canonical and binding. For matters of praxis, and for an example they are of equal authority, although their way of inspiration may be different.

What I'm saying is that even Paul's own words are God breathed, and thus authoratative, but are taken into the context of the rest of the text- eg. the dogmas behind the rulings in his "own words" are the source, and they come from God. Exegetically, at no stage are they any different than the inspired dogma behind them, so this pretty much puts the matter to rest, as I see it.

I would say that it is an exegetical problem. The first question you have to ask is whether or not Paul is incorrect when he states his own words (which is actually quite rare anyway). I say no, he is not incorrect, as his words are not mere opinion but clear instructions to those historically under his authority, and thus by de facto, the ekklesia at large. His own words are still applicable, agreeable to the text and the Faith of the people of God, and therefore, they are obviously able to be within the canon of scripture. They are inspired, but perhaps not in the manner of the rest of the text.

If you take the other angle, which is what some do, that some texts are of greater inspiration than others, or that some texts are not inspired at all, then people are left to decide by themselves which bits of scripture they think are more important than others, and it all becomes rather arbitrary and this is the beginning of the road to modernism and liberalism. Also, this leads to schism, denominationism and the "every man for himself" religion that infects our era. We, as believers, need to put such unbelief to the sword, IMHO. One can't go wrong if one follows Paul's words as they are preserved to us. Conversely, one can go wrong if we decide on an individual basis that they don't apply to oneself for whatever reason or prejudice we might have. I'm sure you'd agree. Should we not take the letters for what they were originaly written for, as guidance for the body? But not law. I don't see how one man can make law for all, that goes against any halachic interpretation I have ever seen. I think what was decided by the Jerusalem councel can be looked upon as such but not Pauls answers to specific problems with certain peoples.

[Lulav]

The only thing that worries me about that view CM is that it was only a generation or two after that when Sunday worship was ordered and things like Christmas and Easter came into being. How sound was their theology to determine which books should, or should not, be allowed? Especially as they had division among themselves about which should and which should not be inlcuded anyway. Very true.

Are you thinking this is a branch of faith (aka cannon that which is private letters) that sticks out too far in a direction that the Lord may cut off?

Since Paul wrote these letters, I am glad they (I don't care who) put them where they are available for all to read. They are like letters John wrote, Peter wrote, Luke wrote and Jude wrote. All have inspired messages contained within that have helped me on my spiritual journey.

There are sections in the Tanach that also are like personal comments that are not inspired writtings of God, but help with the flow and understanding of the truth. yes, they may have insprired messages but are they true halacha? From what I can see Pauls' writing have been taught as law while Yeshua's words are only cursorly refered to if the need arises, because he spoke so called, before the law changed. Or what he spoke was only to the Jews. Or the law would cease after his resurrection.
Are you calling into question the NT or portions in it (specifically the letters)?

For we must be mindful that the OFFICIAL channels of Judaism were clogged up with the doctrines of the Sanhedrin which ultimately reject Yeshua. So, the Ruach HaKodesh used other venues for inspiring holy writ... like the accumulation of the four Gospels (one of which along with the book of Acts were essentially Paul's trial documents for his appeal to Ceasar).

You will recall even in the Tanakh there were wandering (sometimes nude) prophets and priests and some vagabonds... Not all came through (official) channels yet all were equally inspired words of God.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; I'm only questioning how they should be viewed and used. Yes, by his son, and we should be faithful to follow that and not consentrate so much on what one 'apostle' teaches.

JohnD

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we ditch the Scriptures - but these are questions that need to be tackled. It does say in 1 Cor. 11:19 that we shall have disagreements, if only to show who is right - it is in this spirit that I raised the questions because they have been asked of me before. Questions are always good. We should also question what spirit is behind them, this is a good student is it not?

It should be noted that the requirements you refer to are just a quick outline of the Torah of Noach, which is incombant on all humans.

The Seven main categories of the Torah of Naoch are:
Prohibition of idol-worship.
Prohibition of blasphemy.
Prohibition of theft.
Prohibition of murder.
Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
Prohibition of eating meat cut from living animal.
Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 6 categories. There is no such thing as a Torah of Noah, who is Noach to have his own Torah, there is One G-d, one Torah, One Spirit. The one that came up with this is not of G-d. You may believe gentile Christians are idolaters and seek their destruction but I don't believe that is what G-d wants. Sounds more like what the Muslims teach more than HaShem. JM2C.

[ChavaK]

You may believe gentile Christians are idolaters and seek their destruction but I don't believe that is what G-d wants. Sounds more like what the Muslims teach more than HaShem. JM2C.


I don't think this is what Kivi is saying.
I believe (correct me if I am wrong Kivi) that he is saying
that G-d set up minimum standards that apply to all people...
these are the Noahide laws. No Jew will wish destruction upon
Christians and other non-Jews.

[Lulav]

Chavak are you very familiar with the Noachide laws? I think you should be if you are going to defend them. :)

[ChavaK]

Chavak are you very familiar with the Noachide laws? I think you should be if you are going to defend them. :)

Yes I am. For Orthodox Jews, they are pretty much mainstream
theology.

As Kivi outlined above:

The Seven main categories of the Torah of Naoch are:

1. Prohibition of idol-worship.
2. Prohibition of blasphemy.
3. Prohibition of theft.
4. Prohibition of murder.
5. Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
6. Prohibition of eating meat cut from living animal.
7. Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 6 categories.

What's not to defend? :)

[kivi]

Yes I am. For Orthodox Jews, they are pretty much mainstream
theology.

As Kivi outlined above:


What's not to defend? :)
Lulav; You say: "There is no such thing as a Torah of Noah, who is Noach to have his own Torah, there is One G-d, one Torah, One Spirit. The one that came up with this is not of G-d. You may believe gentile Christians are idolaters and seek their destruction but I don't believe that is what G-d wants. Sounds more like what the Muslims teach more than HaShem. JM2C."


If I might share with you the Jewish understanding of history. When G-d created Adom and Chava, He gave them a set of standards/mitzvahs/laws/commandments to govern themselves and their future generations, This was called the Torah of Adom. The eldest son having the responsibility of priesthood/servant for his family.
Torah of Adom
1. Prohibition of idol-worship.
2. Prohibition of blasphemy.
3. Prohibition of theft.
4. Prohibition of murder.
5. Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
6. Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 5 categories.

After the Flood, and the serious spiritual decrease of Mankind, G-d revised those 6 commandments and included the right to eat meat and the limitations on that right as the 7th category. That is the Torah of Noach. That Torah is still the standqrd for all of Mankind. The eldest son of the family still having the responsibilitiy of preisthood/servant for his family. With the establishment of the line of Avraham through Issac and Joseph to Moses and Aaron, G-d decided to take the preisthood duties of the eldest son of each family [note G-d's attack against the 1st born of Egypt] and give them to a single nation, B'nai Israel. The Torah of Moses is the specialized operating instructions for B'nai Israel as priesthood/servants to all of Mankind. Every nation has its own charge from G-d: for example, the Greeks was beauty, the Romans was secular government and military, the Babylonians was science and astronomy.

According to Torah Law, Christianity and Islam, as spiritual systems, meet the standards of the Torah of Noach. There is NO desire, effort, plan, commandment, belief: "gentile Christians are idolaters and [Judaism] seek[s] their destruction". We are forbidden to seek converts and if such come our way, we are required to actively discourage them. There is no need to be Jewish to go to 'heaven'. The Jewish belief is "All of B'nai Israel [the Nation of Israel] and the righteous of the Nations [this would include the righteous of Islam and Christianity] have a portion in Olam Habah [the World to Come]." I hope this answers your questions and quiets your fears. If I can be of further help, please ask, it is my only desire to open honest and faithful dialog between Jew and Christian.

[Lulav]

If I might share with you the Jewish understanding of history. When G-d created Adom and Chava, He gave them a set of standards/mitzvahs/laws/commandments to govern themselves and their future generations, This was called the Torah of Adom. The eldest son having the responsibility of priesthood/servant for his family.

If those were truly in effect I don't see any need for the flood. And what consequences were given if they were not followed? As can be seen by the first violation of this outside the garden, why did HaShem not say that Ca'anan broke one of these six laws?


After the Flood, and the serious spiritual decrease of Mankind, G-d revised those 6 commandments and included the right to eat meat and the limitations on that right as the 7th category. That is the Torah of Noach. That Torah is still the standqrd for all of Mankind. The eldest son of the family still having the responsibilitiy of preisthood/servant for his family. With the establishment of the line of Avraham through Issac and Joseph to Moses and Aaron, G-d decided to take the preisthood duties of the eldest son of each family [note G-d's attack against the 1st born of Egypt] and give them to a single nation, B'nai Israel. The Torah of Moses is the specialized operating instructions for B'nai Israel as priesthood/servants to all of Mankind. Every nation has its own charge from G-d: for example, the Greeks was beauty, the Romans was secular government and military, the Babylonians was science and astronomy. Are they aware of this? When were they told? So one more law was added and they all become Noach's Torah? Why didn't HaShem take this time to reiterate them? Together, he doesn't seem to have done it with Adam and now it isn't done with Noach, except for the one addition.
Who is responsible for governing number 7?

According to Torah Law, Christianity and Islam, as spiritual systems, meet the standards of the Torah of Noach. There is NO desire, effort, plan, commandment, belief: "gentile Christians are idolaters and [Judaism] seek[s] their destruction". We are forbidden to seek converts and if such come our way, we are required to actively discourage them. There is no need to be Jewish to go to 'heaven'. The Jewish belief is "All of B'nai Israel [the Nation of Israel] and the righteous of the Nations [this would include the righteous of Islam and Christianity] have a portion in Olam Habah [the World to Come]." I hope this answers your questions and quiets your fears. If I can be of further help, please ask, it is my only desire to open honest and faithful dialog between Jew and Christian.

According to Torah law, but that is not what you are pushing here, you are pushing the Noachide laws which may have a basis in Torah but are nowhere stated together in there for gentiles to follow to have a place in the world to come. this is not G-ds plan. I know that because I believe his plan for the world to come includes both Jews and gentiles and not with some separate laws. Were those who left Egypt with us told about this? Or did G-ds word stand that if they wanted to join themselves there would be one law for all?

And as far as this:

Christianity and Islam, as spiritual systems, meet the standards of the Torah of Noach. There is NO desire, effort, plan, commandment, belief: "gentile Christians are idolaters and [Judaism] seek[s] their destruction"

Do they? So Judaism now accepts Jesus as a G-d to worship? This is news to me, I was always told that he is an idol among other things. I don't believe that Christianity and Islam are comparable though. But Islam worships NOT the G-d of Abraham, nor Isaac Nor Ya'akov, many who have come out of that with their lives in jeopardy will tell you that. And believing in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua has turned around many a Jew hating Muslim, to loving his brother, nothing Islam or any other religion could do. I could supply much information to the contrary of what you state.

[kivi]

If those were truly in effect I don't see any need for the flood. And what consequences were given if they were not followed? As can be seen by the first violation of this outside the garden, why did HaShem not say that Ca'anan broke one of these six laws?

kivi's answer: The Flood came because of the Torah of Adom was not followed, all of the mitzvahs of the Torah of Adom, in one form or another, where broken by the entire generation. HaShem did say that Cain broke the mitzvah against murder.


Are they aware of this? When were they told?

kivi's answer: when Noach recieved the charge from G-d to build the Ark, there was so much lead time that the 1st thing that Noach did was plant the trees that would be used to build the Ark. All of the actions of Noach was to illicite questons from his fellows so that they would be warned. Noach is critized for not being more aggressive in getting the word out, but there is no question that the generation was fully aware of the coming Flood, they just did not believe it.

So one more law was added and they all become Noach's Torah?

kivi's answer: yes.

Why didn't HaShem take this time to reiterate them?

kivi's answer: He did.

Together, he doesn't seem to have done it with Adam and now it isn't done with Noach, except for the one addition.


kivi's answer: He told both Adom and Noach. If you follow the time line, Adom was alive when Methuselah was born, Methuselah was alive when Noach was born and Noach was alive when Avraham and Yitzchok was born. There was only 4 generations from Adom to Yitzchok.

Who is responsible for governing number 7?

kivi's answer: G-d. 7 is the number of completion in Judaism.



According to Torah law, but that is not what you are pushing here, you are pushing the Noachide laws which may have a basis in Torah but are nowhere stated together in there for gentiles to follow to have a place in the world to come.

kivi's answer: As the priesthood to the Nations, it is the job of B'nai Israel to teach the gentiles the Torah of Noach. It is part of our job description.

this is not G-ds plan. I know that because I believe his plan for the world to come includes both Jews and gentiles and not with some separate laws.

kivi's answer: So does Judaism. the Torah of Noach is obligatory on all humans. The Torah of Moses is the specialized instructions for the priests, just like in the Torah of Moses, the Levites/Kohans have specialized instructions to be the priests to B'nai Israel. Not everybody needs to be a priest, some one has to attend to the plumbing. There is no special 'in' with G-d for a Jew. G-d loves all of His Creation, he said all of it was 'good'. The only special favors it seems G-d has for us seem to involve mass murder and torture.

Were those who left Egypt with us told about this?

kivi's answer. Yes. And, if they wanted to join us they had to convert/be naturalized to the Nation of Israel

Or did G-ds word stand that if they wanted to join themselves there would be one law for all?

kivi's answer. But they did not. Instead, they instigated the Golden Calf.


And as far as this:



Do they? So Judaism now accepts Jesus as a G-d to worship?
kivi's anwer: Not quite. We just see that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost collapes, in actual practice, into something that is close enough to monotheism as to be acceptable. There are not seperate temples or preisthoods or rituals to each part of the Trinity; there is no conflict between them; no mythology, for the most part; the ethics are pretty good. In practice, for all practical purposes, it meets the criteria for the Torah of Noach.

This is news to me, I was always told that he is an idol among other things. I don't believe that Christianity and Islam are comparable though.

kivi's answer: Islam is as pure a matter of monotheism as to be found. And, in the Koran, they fulfill the other 6 requirements. The question/problem is their following their own standards.

But Islam worships NOT the G-d of Abraham, nor Isaac Nor Ya'akov, many who have come out of that with their lives in jeopardy will tell you that. And believing in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua has turned around many a Jew hating Muslim, to loving his brother, nothing Islam or any other religion could do. I could supply much information to the contrary of what you state.x

[ContraMundum]

Should we not take the letters for what they were originaly written for, as guidance for the body?

Depends, really, doesn't it? Some of Paul's letters are highly dogmatic.

But not law. I don't see how one man can make law for all, that goes against any halachic interpretation I have ever seen. I think what was decided by the Jerusalem councel can be looked upon as such but not Pauls answers to specific problems with certain peoples.

As we all know, the Law only comes from God. Interpreting it or settling disputes about it for the purposes of halacha is the mandate of God's visible authority on earth. I don't think Paul is out of step with the other Apostles, or Yeshua, at any point. The way I see it, the Apostles ratified Paul's writings anyway. Therefore Paul should not be considered as speaking alone, but as part of the authoratative Apostolic ministry. I see Paul as part of the whole magisterial authority, an Apostle among the Apostles, as he was received by them as such, I don't see him as a lone voice.

That's my take, anyway.

[ContraMundum]

It should be noted that the requirements you refer to are just a quick outline of the Torah of Noach, which is incombant on all humans.

The Seven main categories of the Torah of Naoch are:
Prohibition of idol-worship.
Prohibition of blasphemy.
Prohibition of theft.
Prohibition of murder.
Prohibition of sexual misconduct.
Prohibition of eating meat cut from living animal.
Prohibition of failing to set up courts of law to enforce the previous 6 categories.


I can't speak for everyone, but as I understand it, it is the belief of Messianic and all other orthodox Christians that the Apostles never started a new belief system, but rather continued the old in the light of God's continuing revelation. Therefore, it should come as no surpise that the Noachide Laws (which were not set in stone in the 1stC AD) are alluded to in the First Council.

[stone]

As I was told when I started to train - if you want to understand Y'shua properly, you have to understand the Scripture that he was teaching, properly! The quote from Timothy, above, reminds us that 'all Scripture is G_d breathed... ', but we have to realise that the Scripture being referred to was NOT the latter testament! This is where many go wrong in the Church - they assume that it refers ONLY to the latter testament. A little thought shows that NOT to be the case; Y'shua and his talmidim only ever taught the earlier testament. If this truth were taken on board we would have all the Feast days for both Christians and Jews aligned perfectly and the earlier Testament would be taught as equal to the latter. The Church gives its whole hearted assent to the so called 10 commandments but carefully ignores the one about the Sabbath - inconsistency abounds when you get the balance wrong.


the apostles would mostly use the tenach to proove from the scriptures that Yeshua is the Christ. This would have been done with those that were familiar with those scriptures. Those most familiar with the tenach is of course no mystery.

The apostles used the tenach so that their eyes would be opened and then they taught them the good news, the gospel. They taught that Jesus lived and walked with them and was crucified and that he did return from death and that he did ascend into the heavens. And while the apostles spoke this new doctrine to the jews, as they eagerly anticipated to hear more of Jesus, many lost souls were saved and many ill were returned to health from those that they witnessed to. These signs that the jews seek after and were given, by the grace of god, only added greatly to the numbers of them that believed in Jesus christ.