10 commandments done away

[Bon]

I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:

[Al Madeleon]

Far as I can tell --

Jesus, when asked the most important commandment, responded that it was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. But he went beyond, which is important; He more than answered the question. He continued, saying that the second most important commandment was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Thus, in keeping these two, you keep all of the Mosaic Ten. You couldn't violate one without faltering in your love of God or your love of others. Thusly, the Ten are kept, in a sense.

The story of the most important commandment, for reference, is in Mark 12:28.

[New_Wineskin]

I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

I wouldn't say "nailed to the cross" but it is as good as anything .



So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

The New Covenant and the newer writings ( called the "new testament" ) are two different animals . The New Covenant is not about writings on paper as being the yardstick but what He reveals and writes on our individual hearts is the yardstick . That is expressed in the letter called "Hebrews" .



So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

Absolutely not . It means that if one needs to use the writings to obtain morality , what use was the cross and the ressurection ? Being a Gentile , the older writings were not written to me .

[muffler dragon]

I wouldn't say "nailed to the cross" but it is as good as anything .



The New Covenant and the newer writings ( called the "new testament" ) are two different animals . The New Covenant is not about writings on paper as being the yardstick but what He reveals and writes on our individual hearts is the yardstick . That is expressed in the letter called "Hebrews" .



Absolutely not . It means that if one needs to use the writings to obtain morality , what use was the cross and the ressurection ? Being a Gentile , the older writings were not written to me .
Awwww, New Wineskin.

It's too bad that this is first thing that you and I disagree upon. But oh well. I figured it would happen sooner or later.

Just to let you know where I stand on Biblical interpretation and things of the sort:

I am of the mindset that there is nothing new in the Brit Chadasha (NT) that is not in the Tanakh (OT). Sha'ul's writings (and the other NT authors for that matter) are more like commentaries on the Tanakh. Therefore, you can find substance for a NT doctrine in the OT. As far as Y'shua, I believe according to John 1:1 that he is the Torah (Logos in Greek, Memra in Aramaic) in the flesh. I believe that he (as well as Sha'ul [Paul]) was a Torah-observant Jew. He remained a Jew as well.

That's just a little caption of thought to share with you. I'm sure you can read into my statements in this post as to why I disagree with you. If not, just ask me for clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.

[DanielRB]

I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:First, I would say that the Ten Commandments were an intregal part of the rest of Torah. Indeed, the Ten Commandments are refered to as "the Tablets of the Covenant" (Hebrews 9:4)--they were the Covenant of Moses.

Torah is instruction from God. Obviously, God has given humanity many instructions in the Bible. Some were obviously for a particular time and occasion and are not meant for us--for example, the instruction God gave Noah to build the ark (Gen 6:13ff). Furthermore, it's obvious that though Abraham was said to follow all of God's "charge, commandments [mitzvot], statutes and laws [torah]" (Gen 26:5), he did not follow the Mosaic torah, which was given some 400 years later. He even did things that were worthy of death under the Mosaic code, such as marry his half-sister (Gen 20:12). Thus, God's law is not synonomous with the torah of Moses.

Jesus came and gave us new torah--new instruction--from God. He contrasted His teaching not only with that of the phrarisees, but also with that of Moses (Matt 5:31-41). One might argue that He made the law of God more strict than Moses, rather than making it more liberal--but making it more strict was just as much as a change as making it more liberal (Deut 4:2, 12:32--we are not to "add to or subtract from" Mosaic law; contrast Jesus' mercy about turning the other cheek with Moses' command 'not to pity' in Deut 19:21). Interestingly enough, Jesus spoke about His changes from the Mosaic law immediately after He spoke of the Law's permanance (Matt 5:17-20). Clearly, He had in mind something other than Moses' law--unless He said "whoops, forget what I said about the law being permanent; I'm changing the laws concerning divorce, oaths and retaliation." ;)

Through our union to Christ, we are now reckoned as dead according to the law of Moses (Rom 7:4-6). Dead people are not under the law of Moses, just as Paul gave the illustration that marraige was just until death--and then one was free to remarry. Paul doesn't say "all the law, except the ten commandments" or "all the ceremonial law, but not the moral law"--the whole of the code of Moses. The New Covenant is in effect; and it is not found in "tablets of stone" (2 Cor 3:3), which is called "the ministry of death" (Heb 3:7). Yes, it was "nailed to the cross" (Col 2:14; see the verses that follow this--clearly Christ's death freed us from laws of kosher foods and Sabbath--and Sabbath is part of the ten commandments).

So, are we free from any kind of instruction from God? "Shall we sin, that grace may abound?" As Paul says, God forbid! (Rom 6:1ff). We are dead to the Mosaic code, but Christ has given us a new Torah, a Torah written on the heart and not on stone (Jer 31:31-34). This new Torah is given to us through God's Holy Spirit who dwells in our hearts. The Holy Spirit also inspired the apostles of the New Covenant to write about these principles. We can turn to the pages of the New Covenant and read how we are to live.

All of the principles of the Ten Commandments, except for Sabbath, are repeated in the New Covenant. God didn't say "Nine of the Ten Commandments are still in effect"; rather He gave us an entirely New Torah--based upon the eternal law of God that will not change (Matt 5:17ff). Since God's nature does not change, there should be no surprise that the New Torah of God is substaintially similar to the old Torah of God--though does differ in places.

So, in a rather long-winded way to respond to your question, no, we can't kill and commit adultery--that's sin. The Holy Spirit, speaking through His apostles (and to our own hearts, if we listen) makes it clear that those things--and a good many others--are against the Torah of God.

In Christ,

Daniel

EDIT: I forgot to add this link, which explains it better than I did: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html . I highly recommend the entire site.

[daveleau]

No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.

[WashedClean]

No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
Amen! :clap:
Great Post Dave!!

[Father Rick]

I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?NO!!! This is not the teaching of the bulk of Christianity, only a few extremists (primarily dispensationalists). Dispensationalist theology is rather new in Church history, originating in the past 150 years or so. It is NOT held by the bulk of the Church, nor is the teaching that the 10 Commandments are done away with.


So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused: When the Scribes asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment, He answered "Love the Lord your God... and the second is like the first, Love you neighbor as yourself ON THIS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" In essence, Jesus was saying that all the laws of the O.T. could be summed up into those 2 categories. If I love my neighbor, I won't lie to them, steal from them, etc. If I love God, I won't worship idols, etc. The contrast between the two is that in the O.T. the people had to have lengthy lists of rules to know what was pleasing to God and in the N.T. His Word is written in out hearts so that we have an intrinsic knowledge of what pleases Him.

[Harry the Heretic]

No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
Romans 8:

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(italics mine)

[BronxBriar]

No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view
The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
1) Just for the record, I am a dispensationalist and have never been taught that nor do I teach it.

2) Yes the moral law remains but it flows naturally from those who have Faith through Grace. We can't say, "I'll follow the Law and that will save me." We all know what saves don't we?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The Ten Commandments are not for today, Jesus restated the principles (except for the Sabbath), and we need to follow what He said, but the actual law is not for us. Colossians 2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

[New_Wineskin]

Awwww, New Wineskin.

It's too bad that this is first thing that you and I disagree upon. But oh well. I figured it would happen sooner or later.

I have a feeling that we differ quite a bit on certain things while agreeing quite a bit on others . But , I am fine with disagreement as long as people don't place requirements on me that the Lord has not already placed . :)



Just to let you know where I stand on Biblical interpretation and things of the sort:

I am of the mindset that there is nothing new in the Brit Chadasha (NT) that is not in the Tanakh (OT). Sha'ul's writings (and the other NT authors for that matter) are more like commentaries on the Tanakh. Therefore, you can find substance for a NT doctrine in the OT. As far as Y'shua, I believe according to John 1:1 that he is the Torah (Logos in Greek, Memra in Aramaic) in the flesh. I believe that he (as well as Sha'ul [Paul]) was a Torah-observant Jew. He remained a Jew as well.

Ok . I am not sure that we connected correctly in my last post . I was attempting to seperate the new covenant from the writings called "the new testament" . I do this because the new covenant isn't based on writings as the Mosaic covenant . It is based more on the type of covenant that Abraham had which was not about writings but about walking with the Lord . If it was based on writings on paper and stone , what woud the difference be ? Paul even mentions that , if there were any set of laws that would succeed , the Law would be that set of laws . So , in several ways , we are on the same page .

I do not agree that Jesus is the Law became flesh or the Scriptures became flesh . I understand that many agree with that idea .

I do not seperate the Scriptures into two covenants since there were a few main ones and I don't see any of them having ended . I do agree that there was much commentary on the older writings in the newer ones . However , the newer writings also outline where a new thing has occured to bring people into a covenant more closely related to Abraham than to Moses .

I do agree that Paul was always a Jew as well as most of the original believers in Jesus being the Messiah . I have no problem with that . I also have no problem with Jesus always being a Jew . However , I am not a Jew as Abraham was not a Jew . Abraham got along fine with the Lord without the Torah ( of which the 10 commandments are a part ) . And , because of the rebirth and the influence of the Holy Spirit , so can I .

So , going back to the OP , I need not be concerned with the Law being nailed to the cross since I was not born under the Law nor have I allowed myself to come under the Law since then . Also , my rebirth was not a result of a promise to Moses or Paul but it was a result of promises made to Abraham who was before Paul's writings and the Torah . So , it doesn't matter if the Law was done away *for me* since I was not nor am I currently under the Law . And , it is written that , what the Law says , it says to those under the Law .

So , if you read that I didn't consider that the Law was to be thrown out by all people , that was miscommunication . I was attempting to stress that they are not a consideration for *me* in *my* being a Gentile .



That's just a little caption of thought to share with you. I'm sure you can read into my statements in this post as to why I disagree with you. If not, just ask me for clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.
Ok . While I think that I understood you in part , I wouldn't know any place specifically where I didn't understand you .

[daveleau]

1) Just for the record, I am a dispensationalist and have never been taught that nor do I teach it.

2) Yes the moral law remains but it flows naturally from those who have Faith through Grace. We can't say, "I'll follow the Law and that will save me." We all know what saves don't we?




There is grace in every dispensation but there is only one dispensation of grace.

This is not the belief of all dispensationalists, but it is how dispensationalism started and some do still believe this. I think many call it ultra-dispensationalism, but they both come from the same study source.

I also agree that the Law can not save us. We are to hold to the Law (moral aspects) because without the Law we would not know what sin was. Through the Law (and of course through the NT), we know what sin is and can steer clear of it. Only Faith and repentance saves.

Your sig has a great quote! That is so true and would heal most of the divisions between dispensationalists and covenantalists, if they all understood it.

[daveleau]

Romans 8:

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(italics mine)

Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.

[muffler dragon]

I have a feeling that we differ quite a bit on certain things while agreeing quite a bit on others . But , I am fine with disagreement as long as people don't place requirements on me that the Lord has not already placed . :)



Ok . I am not sure that we connected correctly in my last post . I was attempting to seperate the new covenant from the writings called "the new testament" . I do this because the new covenant isn't based on writings as the Mosaic covenant . It is based more on the type of covenant that Abraham had which was not about writings but about walking with the Lord . If it was based on writings on paper and stone , what woud the difference be ? Paul even mentions that , if there were any set of laws that would succeed , the Law would be that set of laws . So , in several ways , we are on the same page .

I do not agree that Jesus is the Law became flesh or the Scriptures became flesh . I understand that many agree with that idea .

I do not seperate the Scriptures into two covenants since there were a few main ones and I don't see any of them having ended . I do agree that there was much commentary on the older writings in the newer ones . However , the newer writings also outline where a new thing has occured to bring people into a covenant more closely related to Abraham than to Moses .

I do agree that Paul was always a Jew as well as most of the original believers in Jesus being the Messiah . I have no problem with that . I also have no problem with Jesus always being a Jew . However , I am not a Jew as Abraham was not a Jew . Abraham got along fine with the Lord without the Torah ( of which the 10 commandments are a part ) . And , because of the rebirth and the influence of the Holy Spirit , so can I .

So , going back to the OP , I need not be concerned with the Law being nailed to the cross since I was not born under the Law nor have I allowed myself to come under the Law since then . Also , my rebirth was not a result of a promise to Moses or Paul but it was a result of promises made to Abraham who was before Paul's writings and the Torah . So , it doesn't matter if the Law was done away *for me* since I was not nor am I currently under the Law . And , it is written that , what the Law says , it says to those under the Law .

So , if you read that I didn't consider that the Law was to be thrown out by all people , that was miscommunication . I was attempting to stress that they are not a consideration for *me* in *my* being a Gentile .



Ok . While I think that I understood you in part , I wouldn't know any place specifically where I didn't understand you .
I, too, understand everything that you are saying.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.
Btw, Dave, I just wanted to mention to you that salvation never came to anyone through the Law; not even the Jew. There's really no reason to try to make this distinction.

Shalom,

m.d.

[DanielRB]

Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.
Hi Daveleau, thanks for your post. :wave:

I disagree with your understanding of Hebrews 4. First, let me quote it here:

" Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day." (Hebrews 4:1-8, NKJV)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8796470#_ftnCitation)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8796470#_ftnrefCitation) The New King James Version. 1996, c1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Consider what the author of Hebrews wrote in v5 "they shall not enter My rest", a quote from Psalm 95:11. Turning back to Psalm 95, we read that God was speaking about those who wandered in the wilderness for forty years (Psalm 95:8-10). We know that those who wandered in the wilderness celebrated Sabbath (Ex 16:25ff). If they didn't obey the Sabbath, they were put to death (Numb 15:32ff). Therefore, it doesn't make sense for God to say "they shall not enter my rest", if by "my rest" God meant the Sabbath day, because they had entered it many times during that forty year wandering.

The writer of Hebrews then goes on to state that Joshua didn't give them the rest in Psalm 95:11, otherwise David wouldn't have talked about people still entering that rest (Psalm 95:7 & 8; see also Hebrews 3:16ff). The "rest" that remains for the people of God then neither refers to the Sabbath nor the entry into the land of Canaan. Christ alone brings that true Sabbath; He gives us true rest (Matt 11:29).

Paul made it clear that Sabbath (weekly observance), feast days (annual observance) and new moons (monthly observance) was just a shadow of better things to come--namely, Christ Himself (Col 2:13-17).

I think Colossians is very clear that we shouldn't judge one another on the matter of Sabbath (or feast days, or food or drink); if you want to do these things, fine--if they bring you closer to God, then praise Him! But I believe it is wrong to state that Christians--as a group--are required to observe Sabbath as part of our faithfulness to Christ. (I'm not suggesting that those who believe in Sabbath view it as a condition of salvation; but I don't think it's Scripturally even a condition of obedience, and more than not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics--Deut 22:11--is binding on the Christian.)

In Christ,

Daniel

[Iosias]

I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:
I typed out a long post but lost it here is a summary of my points:

Colossians 2
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Mosaic code has been done away with and we now live under the law of Christ however some elements of this new code will encorporate elements of the old however the old code as a code has been done away with.

[muffler dragon]

I typed out a long post but lost it here is a summary of my points:

Colossians 2
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Mosaic code has been done away with and we now live under the law of Christ however some elements of this new code will encorporate elements of the old however the old code as a code has been done away with.
Dear AV:

Colossians is actually dealing with something besides the Torah, and regarding the Romans 10 statement: it is more a matter of Christ is the example of how to live the Torah lifestyle. In that matter, He is the end of it. The Torah is Perfect; Y'shua (Logos in Greek and Memra in Aramaic) is the Torah embodied.

Anyways... I say all that to say this: I disagree with your assertions above.

m.d.

[DanielRB]

Dear AV:

Colossians is actually dealing with something besides the Torah, and regarding the Romans 10 statement: it is more a matter of Christ is the example of how to live the Torah lifestyle. In that matter, He is the end of it. The Torah is Perfect; Y'shua (Logos in Greek and Memra in Aramaic) is the Torah embodied.

Anyways... I say all that to say this: I disagree with your assertions above.

m.d.
Hi Muffler, thanks for your post. :wave:

Why do you believe Colossians is dealing with something other than Torah?

In Christ,

Daniel

[Father Rick]

I typed out a long post but lost it here is a summary of my points:

Colossians 2
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Mosaic code has been done away with and we now live under the law of Christ however some elements of this new code will encorporate elements of the old however the old code as a code has been done away with.This is actually exactly opposite of what Jesus taught. He said, "I came not to do away with the Law (Torah/Mosaic Code) but to fulfill it."

[Iosias]

This is actually exactly opposite of what Jesus taught. He said, "I came not to do away with the Law (Torah/Mosaic Code) but to fulfill it."
Which is why you need to rightly divide the word of truth :)

[BronxBriar]

This is actually exactly opposite of what Jesus taught. He said, "I came not to do away with the Law (Torah/Mosaic Code) but to fulfill it."
And he did indeed fulfill it! (He was the only one who could). That is why God revealed what he did to Paul. The mystery revealed, the new dispensation, AMAZING GRACE INDEED!

[DanielRB]

This is actually exactly opposite of what Jesus taught. He said, "I came not to do away with the Law (Torah/Mosaic Code) but to fulfill it."
Hi Father Rick, thanks for your post. :wave:

It's important to remember the rest of what He said: "...until all is accomplished." When Christ died on the cross and said "it is finished", He accomplished all...the temple veil was torn in two, signalling the end of an old era and the beginning of a new.

BTW, I am not a dispensationalist.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Crispie]

Hebrews 10:16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."[ 10:16 Jer. 31:33]
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) In context: Hebrews 10:15-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:15-17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on))

[Crispie]

Hebrews 8:7 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8:7&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) In context: Hebrews 8:6-8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8:6-8&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on))

I guess the old covenant wasnt perfect.

[muffler dragon]

Hebrews 10:16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."[ 10:16 Jer. 31:33]
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) In context: Hebrews 10:15-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:15-17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on))
You really need to stop this, Crispie. As I just addressed in another one of your posts: you need to get context. Your eisegesis is gregious.

Furthermore, what the author of Hebrews of addressing has not been fulfilled yet. Do you have the laws of G-d written on your heart? I doubt it. Why is that? Because no one does yet. Everyone is still studying and learning. When it is written on the heart, there will be no more learning, just understanding and doing.

m.d.

[DanielRB]

Hebrews 10:16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."[ 10:16 Jer. 31:33]
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) In context: Hebrews 10:15-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+10:15-17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on))
The word translated "law" in Jeremiah 31:33 is torah--instruction. Many might automatically assume by "torah" Jeremiah (and the writer of Hebrews) meant the torah of Moses. But this is not explicitly stated in the text, and there are other torahs in the Bible.

If Jeremiah meant to say that the torah of Moses was to written on the hearts of those in the new covenant, does that imply a part of Moses' torah, or all of it? If all of it, then what about kosher food laws, wearing clothes of mixed fabric, etc? If only part of it, how do we distinguish between the part that is still active and the part that is no longer applicable?

I think most Christians would agree that at least some of the Mosaic code is no longer in effect, neither required for salvation nor necessary to lead a holy life. But how can you tell what is still applicable, if the torah in Jer 31 is the Mosaic torah? Abraham was faithful to God's torah (Gen 26:5), but it was obvious that Abraham was not faithful to torah as given to Moses (indeed, he was guilty of capital crimes in marrying his half-sister.)

I believe that torah in Jer 31 is refering to God's instruction, written on our hearts. It isn't found written on tablets of stone (as even Paul wrote--2 Cor 3:3, 7), which Paul called "the ministry of death." Yes, the new instruction has many parallels with the Old--because God's character never changes. But His instructions (the literal translation of "torah") for us can change.

In Christ,

Daniel

[muffler dragon]

Hebrews 8:7 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8:7&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) In context: Hebrews 8:6-8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+8:6-8&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on))

I guess the old covenant wasnt perfect.
This is on the border of blaphemous:

How does G-d view the Covenant He made with Israel?:

Exodus 31
16 'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'

Leviticus 24
8 "(1) Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD (2) continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel.

Numbers 18
19 "(1) All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment. It is (2) an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD to you and your descendants with you."

Deuteronomy 4
31 "For the LORD your God is a (1) compassionate God; (2) He will not fail you nor (3) destroy you nor (4) forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.

Deuteronomy 7
9 "Know therefore that the LORD your God, (1) He is God, (2) the faithful God, (3) who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who (4) love Him and keep His commandments;

Judges 2
1 Now (1) the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to (2) Bochim. And he said, "(3) I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, '(4) I will never break My covenant with you,

Psalm 25
14
The (1) secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will (2) make them know His covenant.

Psalm 89
34
"My (1) covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I (2) alter the utterance of My lips.

Psalm 111
9
He has sent (1) redemption to His people;
He has ordained His covenant forever;
(2) Holy and awesome is His name.

Isaiah 56
1
Thus says the LORD,
"(1) Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My (2) salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2
"How (3) blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who (4) takes hold of it;
Who (5) keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil."
3
Let not the (6) foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely separate me from His people."
Nor let the (7) eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the LORD,
"To the eunuchs who (8) keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And (9) hold fast My covenant,
5
To them I will give in My (10) house and within My (11) walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting (12) name which (13) will not be cut off.
6
"Also the (14) foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,
To be His servants, every one who (15) keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7
Even (16) those I will bring to My (17) holy mountain
And (18) make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on (19) My altar;
For (20) My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias (73) was filled with the Holy Spirit, and (74) prophesied, saying:
68
"(75) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished (76) redemption for His people,
69
And has raised up a (77) horn of salvation for us
In the house of David (78) His servant--
70
(79) As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets (80) from of old--
71
(81) Salvation (82) FROM OUR ENEMIES,
And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US;
72
(83) To show mercy toward our fathers,
(84) And to remember His holy covenant,
73
(85) The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,
74
To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75
(86) In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
76
"And you, child, will be called the (87) prophet of (88) the Most High;
For you will go on (89) BEFORE THE LORD TO (90) PREPARE HIS WAYS;
77
To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
By (91) the forgiveness of their sins,
78
Because of the tender mercy of our God,
With which (92) the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
79
(93) TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
To guide our feet into the (94) way of peace."
80 (95) And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

So, Crispie, what other derogatory comments might you like to add that denigrate the Holy Word of G-d?

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of 'slamming' the Tanakh, why don't you try reading it? It will give you a world of wisdom.

m.d.

[DanielRB]

This is on the border of blaphemous:

How does G-d view the Covenant He made with Israel?:

Exodus 31
16 'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'

Leviticus 24
8 "(1) Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD (2) continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel.

Numbers 18
19 "(1) All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment. It is (2) an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD to you and your descendants with you."

Deuteronomy 4
31 "For the LORD your God is a (1) compassionate God; (2) He will not fail you nor (3) destroy you nor (4) forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.

Deuteronomy 7
9 "Know therefore that the LORD your God, (1) He is God, (2) the faithful God, (3) who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who (4) love Him and keep His commandments;

Judges 2
1 Now (1) the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to (2) Bochim. And he said, "(3) I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, '(4) I will never break My covenant with you,

Psalm 25
14
The (1) secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will (2) make them know His covenant.

Psalm 89
34
"My (1) covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I (2) alter the utterance of My lips.

Psalm 111
9
He has sent (1) redemption to His people;
He has ordained His covenant forever;
(2) Holy and awesome is His name.

Isaiah 56
1
Thus says the LORD,
"(1) Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My (2) salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2
"How (3) blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who (4) takes hold of it;
Who (5) keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil."
3
Let not the (6) foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely separate me from His people."
Nor let the (7) eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the LORD,
"To the eunuchs who (8) keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And (9) hold fast My covenant,
5
To them I will give in My (10) house and within My (11) walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting (12) name which (13) will not be cut off.
6
"Also the (14) foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,
To be His servants, every one who (15) keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7
Even (16) those I will bring to My (17) holy mountain
And (18) make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on (19) My altar;
For (20) My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias (73) was filled with the Holy Spirit, and (74) prophesied, saying:
68
"(75) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished (76) redemption for His people,
69
And has raised up a (77) horn of salvation for us
In the house of David (78) His servant--
70
(79) As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets (80) from of old--
71
(81) Salvation (82) FROM OUR ENEMIES,
And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US;
72
(83) To show mercy toward our fathers,
(84) And to remember His holy covenant,
73
(85) The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,
74
To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75
(86) In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
76
"And you, child, will be called the (87) prophet of (88) the Most High;
For you will go on (89) BEFORE THE LORD TO (90) PREPARE HIS WAYS;
77
To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
By (91) the forgiveness of their sins,
78
Because of the tender mercy of our God,
With which (92) the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
79
(93) TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
To guide our feet into the (94) way of peace."
80 (95) And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

So, Crispie, what other derogatory comments might you like to add that denigrate the Holy Word of G-d?

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of 'slamming' the Tanakh, why don't you try reading it? It will give you a world of wisdom.

m.d.
Hello again, Muffler. :wave:

Ok, first--please let's not let this dialogue become too heated, ok? Thanks! :)

Next--Muffler, what is your understanding of what is meant by "faultless" in Hebrews 8:7, and what does the writer of Hebrews mean?:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one." (Hebrews 8:7, The NET Bible)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802653#_ftnCitation)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802653#_ftnrefCitation) Biblical Studies Press. (2001; 2002). The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

Daniel

[muffler dragon]

The word translated "law" in Jeremiah 31:33 is torah--instruction. Many might automatically assume by "torah" Jeremiah (and the writer of Hebrews) meant the torah of Moses. But this is not explicitly stated in the text, and there are other torahs in the Bible.

Understanding that a Jew considers the first five books of the Bible as the Torah, what else would you like to present as 'other torahs'

If Jeremiah meant to say that the torah of Moses was to written on the hearts of those in the new covenant, does that imply a part of Moses' torah, or all of it? If all of it, then what about kosher food laws, wearing clothes of mixed fabric, etc? If only part of it, how do we distinguish between the part that is still active and the part that is no longer applicable?

If it is written on your heart by the hand of G-d, you will automatically understand. Obviously, this has not been fulfilled yet.

Ithink most Christians would agree that at least some of the Mosaic code is no longer in effect, neither required for salvation nor necessary to lead a holy life. But how can you tell what is still applicable, if the torah in Jer 31 is the Mosaic torah? Abraham was faithful to God's torah (Gen 26:5), but it was obvious that Abraham was not faithful to torah as given to Moses (indeed, he was guilty of capital crimes in marrying his half-sister.)

The Torah was never required for salvation. It, in and of itself, did not salvation. It is the obedience and the heart motivation that G-d wants.

You do not know whether Abraham was given the Torah, orally, from G-d or not. Many Jewish people believe he, indeed, was.

I believe that torah in Jer 31 is refering to God's instruction, written on our hearts. It isn't found written on tablets of stone (as even Paul wrote--2 Cor 3:3, 7), which Paul called "the ministry of death." Yes, the new instruction has many parallels with the Old--because God's character never changes. But His instructions (the literal translation of "torah") for us can change.

In Christ,

Daniel

So, you too, are also calling the Torah evil (ministry of death). At least you're stating it as your opinion. I would love to see where you can validate this in the Tanakh. Sha'ul (Paul) was a torah-observant Jew who knew the Torah was good, holy, and worth living by. Do you really think he would equate it to a ministry of death?

Furthermore, what instructions would you consider worth changing if an unchanging G-d gave you something that He considered everlasting? The Torah is intact in the way it has been since day one. To insinuate otherwise, is not a good place to be.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Dear Daniel:

My apologies for heat. I've been dealing with Crispie elsewhere, and he never substantiates his opinion. Is that a valid excuse for my behavior? No. But I won't hide my emotions for the sake of it either.

Hebrews 8
A New Covenant

7 For (16) if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8 For finding fault with them, He says,
"(17) BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT (18) A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9
(19) NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10
"(20) FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM (21) ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11
"(22) AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR (23) ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12
"(24) FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
(25) AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
13 When He said, "(26) A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. (27) But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

As I have said elsewhere, and will place in this thread: the entire context of this passage is talking about the renewing of the marriage covenant between God and Israel as seen in Jeremiah 31. This has nothing to do with the gentile.

Therefore, the word faultless is something I will have to look up in the aramaic and greek to see what exactly the author is driving at. I think it is unfair to address one particular verse and say the things that Crispie purports.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

I openly apologize for the heat of my arguments. I am sorry, and I will try to keep it more cordial from now on.

m.d.

[BInC]

*Jumping in the middle*

In response to the original question, I think what you have to keep in mind is this: Jesus commanded you to love the Lord your God. Now just think about what that means. If you truly love somone, you will desire to make them happy, right? Well, God made it pretty clear on how to make him happy. The Old Testament, especially the commandments, tell you what God wants you to do. If you do those things, it will please him. Therefore, if you truly love God you will strive to follow the Ten Commandments. In the end, it's all about love.

*ok, 2 cents deposited. resume.*

[New_Wineskin]

I, too, understand everything that you are saying.

m.d.
That's great , md !! :)

In another forum , a certain messianic just wouldn't allow anyone to be free from the Torah . In fact , she continually claimed that the Scriptures *were* god .

[DanielRB]

'Lo again, Muffler! :wave:

Understanding that a Jew considers the first five books of the Bible as the Torah, what else would you like to present as 'other torahs'There are many different meanings of the word "Torah", even to the Jew. It can mean the first five books of the Bible. It can mean the actual laws contained in those first five books of the Bible. It sometimes is applied to the whole of the Tanakh. It often includes (for Rabbinic/Talmudic Jews) the oral Torah. The basic meaning of the word is "instruction." I would concede, though, that in Scripture it generally refers to the Torah of Moses.

If it is written on your heart by the hand of G-d, you will automatically understand. Obviously, this has not been fulfilled yet.I think you have a good point here. However, if this is the case, why does the writer of Hebrews refer to Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 & 10? And if we are not under the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, then where is the New Covenant of Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24 described? Do you believe it was prophesied in the Tanakh or not?

The Torah was never required for salvation. It, in and of itself, did not salvation. It is the obedience and the heart motivation that G-d wants.I agree; obedience to Torah never saved. A living faith was the only thing that ever saved, then and now. (Rom 4:1ff).

You do not know whether Abraham was given the Torah, orally, from G-d or not. Many Jewish people believe he, indeed, was.Maybe Abraham was given the law, maybe not. But he did works that were considered capital offenses under the Mosaic code (marrying his sister, for example). How could God say that Abraham obeyed His torah (Gen 26:5), if that torah was identical with the Mosaic code, when he broke it in such a serious way?

So, you too, are also calling the Torah evil (ministry of death). At least you're stating it as your opinion. I would love to see where you can validate this in the Tanakh. Sha'ul (Paul) was a torah-observant Jew who knew the Torah was good, holy, and worth living by. Do you really think he would equate it to a ministry of death?Ok, then what do you think Paul was calling a "ministry of death" that was "engraved on stones?:

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. " (2 Corinthians 3:1-11, NASB95)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802763#_ftnCitation)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802763#_ftnrefCitation) New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.




Furthermore, what instructions would you consider worth changing if an unchanging G-d gave you something that He considered everlasting? The Torah is intact in the way it has been since day one. To insinuate otherwise, is not a good place to be.

zm.d.I would not presume to say what God should or shouldn't change about His instructions to us. However, "everlasting" in Hebrew does not mean exactly what it means in English. I would highly recommend reading the article at the following link. It is quite lengthy, but I believe the author makes some excellent points on this very subject: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html

And thank you for your gracious apology; I, too often get quite heated in these discussions. Forgiven and forgotten. :D

In Christ,

Daniel

[DanielRB]

As I have said elsewhere, and will place in this thread: the entire context of this passage is talking about the renewing of the marriage covenant between God and Israel as seen in Jeremiah 31. This has nothing to do with the gentile.

Therefore, the word faultless is something I will have to look up in the aramaic and greek to see what exactly the author is driving at. I think it is unfair to address one particular verse and say the things that Crispie purports.

m.d.
Hi again, Muffler! :wave:

I agree that Jeremiah 31 is a New Covenant between Israel and God, and gentiles are not mentioned. I also believe that the people of God is one. The Church is Israel under a New Covenant, in which gentiles may join. Sadly, most Jews are broken off from this one people of God, but they will be re-grafted in one day. (See Rom 11 for more details.) Thus, I disagree with dispensationalists who believe that there are two people of God--Israel and the Church--and I disagree with 'replacement theology', which teaches that Israel is utterly rejected in favor of a gentile Church.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Bon]

what the author of Hebrews of addressing has not been fulfilled yet. Do you have the laws of G-d written on your heart? I doubt it. Why is that? Because no one does yet. Everyone is still studying and learning. When it is written on the heart, there will be no more learning, just understanding and doing.

m.d.

Wow! m.d.
I've never heard that before! Can you explain this further with some scriptures please. I have always had a different view....(but am open to figure the real and only truth)

I have always believed that the Laws are now written on the hearts of believers (of truth).

Here I go, with 'another' indepth study of 'another' subject.... :|

with thanks from Bon

[Bon]

There is an interesting study on the net called THE RESTORATION OF TORAH if anyone is bothered to check it out.
It is from a Messianic point of view (of course :) ) and discusses the Law including the New Covenants view of the Law (Torah) etc.

It's quite lengthy but well worth a read and VERY relevant to this thread.

http://home.att.net/~tnt_robinson/wsb/TheRestorationofTorahII.htm

with thanks from Bon

[muffler dragon]

That's great , md !! :)

In another forum , a certain messianic just wouldn't allow anyone to be free from the Torah . In fact , she continually claimed that the Scriptures *were* god .
Dear NW:

Just to let you know: I wasn't giving a complete blessing to your statements. I just understand what you are saying. There are still some things I disagree with, but that's one of the things I enjoy about discoursing with you. There is no judgment coming from you within your opinions, and I try to give the same back. The only time when I get heated or nasty is when I am attacked. Granted, I need to get that under check. But it's a work in progress.

You might want to check out my "Messianic Understanding of Grace" thread in Spirit-filled forum for some ideas as to the natural progression of things in my thinking.

Shalom,

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Hi Muffler, thanks for your post. :wave:

Why do you believe Colossians is dealing with something other than Torah?

In Christ,

Daniel
One of the first reasons, Daniel, is because of the extreme amount of reverence that Sha'ul, Y'shua and any other Jew would have for the Torah.

As one studies the Gospels, it's easier to explain things through Jewish eyes. Y'shua never condemned the Pharisees for their observance of Torah; instead, it was their man-made additions that caused issues (parts of the Oral Torah or Halacha). The same was adopted by Sha'ul. The other groups that would come into play would be sects such as Sadducees and Essenes. The Essenes were 'extremely' legalistic. The amount of 'hand-written' restrictions that they placed were immense. BUT, the bigger problem with what the Essenes would say is that they placed salvation and standing with G-d in contingency with these man-made doctrines: "Follow or your are fallen!"

The Law or Torah was never a means of salvation; it was a guide. Do you see the difference? This is where the statement: the spirit versus the letter of the Law comes into play. The Torah is Holy and Good. It is meant as a guide (that is the spirit of the Law); whereas others believe that somehow the Torah gives you salvation (the letter).

Hopefully, I've made sense instead of rambling.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Which is why you need to rightly divide the word of truth :)
Dear AV:

That's a crack shot that is most unfortunate to be coming from you. It's arrogant and, IMO, wrong.

If we evaluate the aramaic and greek background to the words in this statement by Y'shua, one might find that it has to do with Y'shua placing the Torah upon a firmer foundation (not ending it).

Furthermore, that would be contrary to His very nature. As I have stated before (and while some may disagree, no one has refuted), the "Word" in John 1:1 is taken from Memra in Aramaic and Logos in Greek. The two coincide to show that Y'shua was the embodiment of the Torah. Therefore, he did not end it, but instead, gave a clearer picture and understanding.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Hi Father Rick, thanks for your post. :wave:

It's important to remember the rest of what He said: "...until all is accomplished." When Christ died on the cross and said "it is finished", He accomplished all...the temple veil was torn in two, signalling the end of an old era and the beginning of a new.

BTW, I am not a dispensationalist.

In Christ,

Daniel
Dear Daniel:

I don't agree with this assertion either.

"Until all is accomplished" does not mean simply the crucifixion.

My understanding is this: the L-rd has said,
Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the (22) Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, (23) until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Thus, the Law will not end until the complete will of G-d is completed. Not just the crucifixion. This further adds credence to the position that Y'shua came to 'reNew' the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel as seen in Jeremiah 31. There is no discussion of Torah ending there.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

'Lo again, Muffler! :wave:

There are many different meanings of the word "Torah", even to the Jew. It can mean the first five books of the Bible. It can mean the actual laws contained in those first five books of the Bible. It sometimes is applied to the whole of the Tanakh. It often includes (for Rabbinic/Talmudic Jews) the oral Torah. The basic meaning of the word is "instruction." I would concede, though, that in Scripture it generally refers to the Torah of Moses.

I, too, know acknowledge and understand what you are saying. However, the way you presented it before, it was as though completely other things were considered Torah. With what you have stated above, do you really see any reason why they cannot be inter-changeable; they're all talking about the same thing?


I think you have a good point here. However, if this is the case, why does the writer of Hebrews refer to Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 & 10? And if we are not under the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, then where is the New Covenant of Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24 described? Do you believe it was prophesied in the Tanakh or not?

One thing I need to tell you, as I don't know if I have yet: I believe that all of the "New" Testament can be confirmed in the Tanakh. Therefore, all that is stated in the "New" Testament must have a basis in the Tanakh to be valid. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was prophesied. The problem is what is your understanding of the "New" covenant versus mine. As I have stated, the "New" covenant is actually a renewing of the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel (this is also the Mosaic). Thus, the work of Y'shua on the cross has opened the opportunity for the Jews to fulfill their calling before G-d. I believe the passages in Hebrews, Matthew and Jeremiah are all talking about the exact same thing.

I agree; obedience to Torah never saved. A living faith was the only thing that ever saved, then and now. (Rom 4:1ff).

I hope my clarification before was not in vain then. :)

Maybe Abraham was given the law, maybe not. But he did works that were considered capital offenses under the Mosaic code (marrying his sister, for example). How could God say that Abraham obeyed His torah (Gen 26:5), if that torah was identical with the Mosaic code, when he broke it in such a serious way?

That's something I would have to look into to be honest. If you would like my opinion: I don't know that I agree that the entire Torah was given unto Abraham orally by G-d. I don't know if I disagree yet either. I have not studied enough to come to a firm understanding. However, one thing that we would have to do (if we are given the time) is understand what was going on in the cultures surrounding the Israelites that G-d brought these conditions regarding marriage. That is one part of the context that may very well unleash the power of the story. Regarding the union between Abraham and Sarah, we don't know if he would have been required to intermarry within his family in order to have some sort of 'cleanliness' from the pagan nations around him. There is just a lot more to consider to the story than saying that he would have broken the Torah. Do you understand what I am saying?

Ok, then what do you think Paul was calling a "ministry of death" that was "engraved on stones?:

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. " (2 Corinthians 3:1-11, NASB95)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802763#_ftnCitation)
[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8802763#_ftnrefCitation) New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Some key things I see as I look at my online Bible:

The covenant which Sha'ul references in verse six is cross-referenced with Jeremiah 31, which we know has nothing to do with the gentile.

My contention in all of this is the situation where Sha'ul is addressing the same thing that Y'shua did. You might note in one of my other posts, the discussion about Halacha, regulations by the Essenes, and so on. The ministry of death in essence would be those adding man-made doctrines onto the Torah in order to procure their place in power, their so-called righteousness or separation from others...

I don't believe and can't believe that Sha'ul would ever use such words to describe the Torah.

Do you know what the root problem is to understanding some of the writings of Sha'ul? Not that there is an inherent problem with the words themselves or a limiting on the Godliness of them. It's a matter that we are only hearing one side of the conversation. And most times, I think we don't address what the other side is asking or talking about.

These people in all the letters of Sha'ul were primarily Jews (as Sha'ul) always went to the synagogues to teach and discuss. With that being the case, and the varying sects that would come through. I imagine that a great deal of Sha'ul's writings are in direct opposition to some form of Halacha and not the Written Torah itself.

I would not presume to say what God should or shouldn't change about His instructions to us. However, "everlasting" in Hebrew does not mean exactly what it means in English. I would highly recommend reading the article at the following link. It is quite lengthy, but I believe the author makes some excellent points on this very subject: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html

And thank you for your gracious apology; I, too often get quite heated in these discussions. Forgiven and forgotten. :D

In Christ,

Daniel

And I'm not looking to get into semantics about everlasting, but we have to look at history and what we have in front of our eyes. The Jews are still alive, they have a portion of their land and so on. Without G-d, the Jews would no longer be, there would be no salvation, there would be no understanding, and the promises of G-d would be void. That may sound nihilistic, but I find it to be true. If the Jews are ever wiped out, then G-d would be a liar.

I'll try to get to your link in the near future.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Hi again, Muffler! :wave:

I agree that Jeremiah 31 is a New Covenant between Israel and God, and gentiles are not mentioned. I also believe that the people of God is one. The Church is Israel under a New Covenant, in which gentiles may join. Sadly, most Jews are broken off from this one people of God, but they will be re-grafted in one day. (See Rom 11 for more details.) Thus, I disagree with dispensationalists who believe that there are two people of God--Israel and the Church--and I disagree with 'replacement theology', which teaches that Israel is utterly rejected in favor of a gentile Church.

In Christ,

Daniel
Dear Daniel:

One thing I wanted to point out: foreigners/gentiles/whatevers :) were always given the same opportunity even in the Tanakh.

Isaiah 56:
Isaiah 56


Rewards for Obedience to God

1
Thus says the LORD,
"(1) Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My (2) salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2
"How (3) blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who (4) takes hold of it;
Who (5) keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil."
3
Let not the (6) foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely separate me from His people."
Nor let the (7) eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the LORD,
"To the eunuchs who (8) keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And (9) hold fast My covenant,
5
To them I will give in My (10) house and within My (11) walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting (12) name which (13) will not be cut off.
6
"Also the (14) foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD,
To be His servants, every one who (15) keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7
Even (16) those I will bring to My (17) holy mountain
And (18) make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on (19) My altar;
For (20) My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."

Just another reason why I see the "reNEWed" Covenant between Israel and G-d only.

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Wow! m.d.
I've never heard that before! Can you explain this further with some scriptures please. I have always had a different view....(but am open to figure the real and only truth)

I have always believed that the Laws are now written on the hearts of believers (of truth).

Here I go, with 'another' indepth study of 'another' subject.... :|

with thanks from Bon
It was more a matter of my own opinion.

How would one prove it pro- or anti- what I have stated? I don't think it can be.

What I am looking at is the inference. If the Scriptures are written on our hearts, then what would we have to study? It would be inherent in our nature.

Let me know what you had originally thought, you may very well be the one who can teach in this regard. :)

m.d.

[DanielRB]

One of the first reasons, Daniel, is because of the extreme amount of reverence that Sha'ul, Y'shua and any other Jew would have for the Torah.

As one studies the Gospels, it's easier to explain things through Jewish eyes. Y'shua never condemned the Pharisees for their observance of Torah; instead, it was their man-made additions that caused issues (parts of the Oral Torah or Halacha). The same was adopted by Sha'ul. The other groups that would come into play would be sects such as Sadducees and Essenes. The Essenes were 'extremely' legalistic. The amount of 'hand-written' restrictions that they placed were immense. BUT, the bigger problem with what the Essenes would say is that they placed salvation and standing with G-d in contingency with these man-made doctrines: "Follow or your are fallen!"

The Law or Torah was never a means of salvation; it was a guide. Do you see the difference? This is where the statement: the spirit versus the letter of the Law comes into play. The Torah is Holy and Good. It is meant as a guide (that is the spirit of the Law); whereas others believe that somehow the Torah gives you salvation (the letter).

Hopefully, I've made sense instead of rambling.

m.d.
Hi Muffler, thanks for your post. :wave:

I definately see a difference between the Mosaic torah being a guide and not a means of salvation, if by "salvation" we mean eternal life. Indeed, when the Mosaic torah was given, there were no promises of eternal life attached with it--only earthly life. The whole idea of heaven as a place of eternal bliss for the righteous is only hinted at in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. I never have disputed this.

The question, however, is if the torah of Moses should be a guide to our lives under our life in Christ. In other words, do we need to keep as much of the Mosaic torah as possible in this present age?

If you don't believe that Paul was talking about the Mosaic code in Colossians 2, what exactly do you believe he's discussing? You hinted that it might be something akin to the teachings of the Essenes or Sadducees (the Sadducees, however, seemed far less legalistic--in terms of adherence to traditions of men--than the Pharisees.) Keep in mind what Paul discussed in Colossians 2:

*Circumcision in Christ is made without hands, vs. circumcision made with hands (vv11-13)
*No one was to judge someone on matters of food or drink, festivals, new moons or sabbaths (v 16)
*Food and drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths are shadows, Christ is the substance (v17)
*We are not to subject ourselves to regulations of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" (vv 20-23)

These matters--circumcision, food and drink, festivals, new moons, sabbaths, things not to touch, taste or handle--are matters of Mosaic regulation. Yes, non-Mosaic sources also speak of those things. But Paul didn't say "forget the man-made additions to the torah of Moses; just hold fast to the torah of Moses." Rather, he spoke in such an inclusive way as to include both man-made traditions and the code of Moses.

So I ask you: if those who follow Jesus are to obey the torah of Moses (again, I recognize that this is not necessarily for salvation), does that include all of torah? Should all Christians:
*Be circumcised?
*Follow the sabbath?
*Obey kosher food laws?
*Not wear clothing of mixed fabrics?
*Require and eye for an eye, and not allowing pity to avoid this? (Deut 19:21)
*Never allow an Ammonite or Moabite to enter into the congregation? (Deut 23:3)
*Require a man to marry his brother's widow? (Deut 25:5ff)
*Cut off the hand of a woman who grabs a man's genitals in a fight? (Deut 25:11ff)

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not trying to say "Look how silly these laws are--surely you don't believe we should follow them!". God forbid! I totally believe that at one time God did require these things, and if they seem silly or foolish to us, then it is our problem, not God's. No, I am honestly asking: do you believe that we should try to follow all of Moses' teachings? And if not all, then how do we decide what to throw out and what to keep?

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

Daniel

[DanielRB]

Hi again, Muffler! :wave:

I, too, know acknowledge and understand what you are saying. However, the way you presented it before, it was as though completely other things were considered Torah. With what you have stated above, do you really see any reason why they cannot be inter-changeable; they're all talking about the same thing?Let me steal a quote from the link I had provided:

First, from the Rabbinic scholar Solomon Schecter:



"It must first be stated that the term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means a teaching or an instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition in which Torah and Mizwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be found in the Rabbinic literature, implies already that the former means something more than merely the Law (e.g b. Ber 31a; b. Makk 23a; m. Abot 3.11). Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. (Solomon Schecter in [ART, (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#ART) p.117f])



"To the great majority of the Rabbis who retained their sober sense, and cared more about what God requires of us to be than about knowing what he is, the Torah was simply the manifestation of God's will, revealed to us for our good; the pedagogue, as the Rabbis expressed it, who educates God's creatures." [ART, (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#ART) p.135f]

Torah is, therefore, just God's instruction. It certainly includes the Mosaic teaching, but it does not exclude everything else. To be obedient to Torah means to be obedient to God's teachings as a whole, and not just adherence to certain passages in the Pentateuch.

One thing I need to tell you, as I don't know if I have yet: I believe that all of the "New" Testament can be confirmed in the Tanakh. Therefore, all that is stated in the "New" Testament must have a basis in the Tanakh to be valid. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was prophesied. The problem is what is your understanding of the "New" covenant versus mine. As I have stated, the "New" covenant is actually a renewing of the marriage covenant between G-d and Israel (this is also the Mosaic). Thus, the work of Y'shua on the cross has opened the opportunity for the Jews to fulfill their calling before G-d. I believe the passages in Hebrews, Matthew and Jeremiah are all talking about the exact same thing.Could you please further elaborate on this? Earlier you stated that you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect yet, since it doesn't appear as though we have the Torah of God written on our hearts. Is there an "already/not yet" dimension with the new covenant? If so, then I don't believe our views are that different.

I hope my clarification before was not in vain then. :)No clarification was needed. :) I understood all along that you were not suggesting that obedience to the torah of Moses was necessary for salvation.

That's something I would have to look into to be honest. If you would like my opinion: I don't know that I agree that the entire Torah was given unto Abraham orally by G-d. I don't know if I disagree yet either. I have not studied enough to come to a firm understanding. However, one thing that we would have to do (if we are given the time) is understand what was going on in the cultures surrounding the Israelites that G-d brought these conditions regarding marriage. That is one part of the context that may very well unleash the power of the story. Regarding the union between Abraham and Sarah, we don't know if he would have been required to intermarry within his family in order to have some sort of 'cleanliness' from the pagan nations around him. There is just a lot more to consider to the story than saying that he would have broken the Torah. Do you understand what I am saying?I appreciate your openess and honesty on this, Muffler. But consider the implications of the tentative solution that you propose: if a principle can 'trump' another principle of torah (as Jesus suggested in John 7:22ff), then perhaps we need to think of how that might affect our obedience to torah today.

Some key things I see as I look at my online Bible:

The covenant which Sha'ul references in verse six is cross-referenced with Jeremiah 31, which we know has nothing to do with the gentile.I agree, as I stated before, that Jeremiah 31 is a new covenant with Israel and not with some gentile entity. I do not believe that God made a seperate covenant with a gentile Church.

My contention in all of this is the situation where Sha'ul is addressing the same thing that Y'shua did. You might note in one of my other posts, the discussion about Halacha, regulations by the Essenes, and so on. The ministry of death in essence would be those adding man-made doctrines onto the Torah in order to procure their place in power, their so-called righteousness or separation from others...Re-read 2 Corinthians 3:1-11. First, what was called "the ministry of death" was engraven on stones (v 7). Does this apply to man-made traditions? Second, it was given through Moses (again, v 7). Can it be said that man-made traditions were given through Moses?

I don't believe and can't believe that Sha'ul would ever use such words to describe the Torah.Well...Muffler, all I can say is please try to understand the plainest meaning of the text, even if it (for now) might suggest a contradiction with what you understand about the Mosaic torah. I know sometimes in my Bible study I run across things that challenge my ideas and what I understand about other Scriptures. I haven't reconciled them all. But I honestly can't see how you can apply 2 Corinthians 3's description of a "minstry of death" to anything but the Mosaic code. I am, of course, open to another interpretation that fits the context, but so far I haven't seen one yet.

Now, one thing is that some translations use something other than "ministry of death". Perhaps that can shed light on the issue.

Do you know what the root problem is to understanding some of the writings of Sha'ul? Not that there is an inherent problem with the words themselves or a limiting on the Godliness of them. It's a matter that we are only hearing one side of the conversation. And most times, I think we don't address what the other side is asking or talking about.I totally agree; wouldn't it have been nice to have a copy of the other side of correspondence with Paul?

These people in all the letters of Sha'ul were primarily Jews (as Sha'ul) always went to the synagogues to teach and discuss. With that being the case, and the varying sects that would come through. I imagine that a great deal of Sha'ul's writings are in direct opposition to some form of Halacha and not the Written Torah itself.Sometimes the Churches had a large number of Jews, other times they had many gentiles. It depends on the Church.

And I'm not looking to get into semantics about everlasting, but we have to look at history and what we have in front of our eyes. The Jews are still alive, they have a portion of their land and so on. Without G-d, the Jews would no longer be, there would be no salvation, there would be no understanding, and the promises of G-d would be void. That may sound nihilistic, but I find it to be true. If the Jews are ever wiped out, then G-d would be a liar.I have never challenged God's plan with the Jews. I firmly believe that, as Paul wrote in Romans 11:26, "all Israel shall be saved." God is not through with Israel-of-the-flesh, even if the majority of Paul's fellow countrymen are in a state of unbelief in their Messiah.

I'll try to get to your link in the near future.

m.d.Thanks, Muffler. I would highly recommend many of the other articles on that website as well.

In Christ,

Daniel

[muffler dragon]

Hi Muffler, thanks for your post. :wave:

I definately see a difference between the Mosaic torah being a guide and not a means of salvation, if by "salvation" we mean eternal life. Indeed, when the Mosaic torah was given, there were no promises of eternal life attached with it--only earthly life. The whole idea of heaven as a place of eternal bliss for the righteous is only hinted at in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. I never have disputed this.

The question, however, is if the torah of Moses should be a guide to our lives under our life in Christ. In other words, do we need to keep as much of the Mosaic torah as possible in this present age?

Good question. The thing is: there are a number of mitzvah that cannot be kept: regarding the Temple, the priesthood, and so forth. The process I am going through is this: starting with a Kosher diet (because I believe it is healthy for you), I am working on honoring the Sabbath, and then I'll go to the next thing that G-d brings to the table. It's a matter of day-by-day living and revelation. I don't have to swallow the whole thing in one day.

If you don't believe that Paul was talking about the Mosaic code in Colossians 2, what exactly do you believe he's discussing? You hinted that it might be something akin to the teachings of the Essenes or Sadducees (the Sadducees, however, seemed far less legalistic--in terms of adherence to traditions of men--than the Pharisees.) Keep in mind what Paul discussed in Colossians 2:

You are correct between the Sadducees and Pharisees. The Pharisees accepted Halacha (Oral Torah) whereas the Sadducees did not. I was just saying that I am sure there are different areas within each sect that probably had their own 'additions'.

*Circumcision in Christ is made without hands, vs. circumcision made with hands (vv11-13)
*No one was to judge someone on matters of food or drink, festivals, new moons or sabbaths (v 16)
*Food and drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths are shadows, Christ is the substance (v17)
*We are not to subject ourselves to regulations of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" (vv 20-23)

These matters--circumcision, food and drink, festivals, new moons, sabbaths, things not to touch, taste or handle--are matters of Mosaic regulation. Yes, non-Mosaic sources also speak of those things. But Paul didn't say "forget the man-made additions to the torah of Moses; just hold fast to the torah of Moses." Rather, he spoke in such an inclusive way as to include both man-made traditions and the code of Moses.

One thing that I have learned about is that Sha'ul often spoke (as Y'shua did) about how great the symbolism of certain things were, but the line is crossed when people attribute salvation to them. Do you see the difference? It's one thing to perform an act; it's another to think it gives you exclusivity. That is the majority of what Sha'ul is addressing: the idea that it gives you something that others don't have. The statement "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" comes explicitly from his dealings with the Essenes. They were very much the way I have described.

So I ask you: if those who follow Jesus are to obey the torah of Moses (again, I recognize that this is not necessarily for salvation), does that include all of torah? Should all Christians:
*Be circumcised?
*Follow the sabbath?
*Obey kosher food laws?
*Not wear clothing of mixed fabrics?
*Require and eye for an eye, and not allowing pity to avoid this? (Deut 19:21)
*Never allow an Ammonite or Moabite to enter into the congregation? (Deut 23:3)
*Require a man to marry his brother's widow? (Deut 25:5ff)
*Cut off the hand of a woman who grabs a man's genitals in a fight? (Deut 25:11ff)

It is a matter of conviction and path revelation by G-d. I don't know if I have mentioned this here, but there are three different considerations of the Jew to the Gentile: first, there is the Noachide, then the G-d-fearer, then the convert. The G-d-fearer just takes his walk further into the Torah. The convert obviously accepts and tries to fulfill all of Torah to completion. Will G-d call me to convert to Judaism in time? I do not know. If He does, I will. But as I stated above, I simply trying to move in a very personal relationship with G-d. And that is another thing that Christians don't realize about Judaism. It is a very personal and familial relationship. The emphasis is on the person and family, not the congregation.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not trying to say "Look how silly these laws are--surely you don't believe we should follow them!". God forbid! I totally believe that at one time God did require these things, and if they seem silly or foolish to us, then it is our problem, not God's. No, I am honestly asking: do you believe that we should try to follow all of Moses' teachings? And if not all, then how do we decide what to throw out and what to keep?

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

Daniel

I don't see any sarcasm or reproach in anything you have written. You have treated me with the utmost respect and I appreciate that greatly. I hope that I have answered your final questions within the context of the other parts of your post. If not, re-address, and I will answer.

Shalom,

Nathan

[muffler dragon]

Hi again, Muffler! :wave:

Let me steal a quote from the link I had provided:

First, from the Rabbinic scholar Solomon Schecter:



"It must first be stated that the term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means a teaching or an instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition in which Torah and Mizwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be found in the Rabbinic literature, implies already that the former means something more than merely the Law (e.g b. Ber 31a; b. Makk 23a; m. Abot 3.11). Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. (Solomon Schecter in [ART, (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#ART) p.117f])



"To the great majority of the Rabbis who retained their sober sense, and cared more about what God requires of us to be than about knowing what he is, the Torah was simply the manifestation of God's will, revealed to us for our good; the pedagogue, as the Rabbis expressed it, who educates God's creatures." [ART, (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#ART) p.135f]

Torah is, therefore, just God's instruction. It certainly includes the Mosaic teaching, but it does not exclude everything else. To be obedient to Torah means to be obedient to God's teachings as a whole, and not just adherence to certain passages in the Pentateuch.

Dear Daniel:

That quote is awesome, and quite correct. You have to forgive my surprise that someone on this forum would present that. I offer my apologies to you for assuming otherwise. We are on the same page of understanding.


Could you please further elaborate on this? Earlier you stated that you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect yet, since it doesn't appear as though we have the Torah of God written on our hearts. Is there an "already/not yet" dimension with the new covenant? If so, then I don't believe our views are that different.

The work of Y'shua is completed. The door has been opened, but not all have partaken of the renewed situation. We are in the process of the completion of the scenario. Does that make sense? The Torah of G-d is, from my perspective, not written on the hearts of men yet. However, the day is coming when that will be the case. The calling of Israel is part of that.

Let me make clear that I am not stating that the New Covenant is not in effect, I am simply saying that it is still in process. Y'shua started what was necessary.

No clarification was needed. :) I understood all along that you were not suggesting that obedience to the torah of Moses was necessary for salvation.

That's a rarity, but thank you once again for destroying my assumption. :)

I appreciate your openess and honesty on this, Muffler. But consider the implications of the tentative solution that you propose: if a principle can 'trump' another principle of torah (as Jesus suggested in John 7:22ff), then perhaps we need to think of how that might affect our obedience to torah today.

I wasn't speaking of trumping; I am simply saying that we need to understand the context. Furthermore, I am sure (and this is another assumption on the other side of the spectrum) that you are aware that a commandment of G-d can be broken to save a life? As long as you are not breaking the commandment to save a life in a bad manner. This is not a matter of trumping, but instead, preserving the sanctity of life. In Judaism, life stands above all else.

I agree, as I stated before, that Jeremiah 31 is a new covenant with Israel and not with some gentile entity. I do not believe that God made a seperate covenant with a gentile Church.

Okay.

Re-read 2 Corinthians 3:1-11. First, what was called "the ministry of death" was engraven on stones (v 7). Does this apply to man-made traditions? Second, it was given through Moses (again, v 7). Can it be said that man-made traditions were given through Moses?

I may have to do a partial or full recanting of what I said before. Therefore, let me do some study on this and get back to you.

Well...Muffler, all I can say is please try to understand the plainest meaning of the text, even if it (for now) might suggest a contradiction with what you understand about the Mosaic torah. I know sometimes in my Bible study I run across things that challenge my ideas and what I understand about other Scriptures. I haven't reconciled them all. But I honestly can't see how you can apply 2 Corinthians 3's description of a "minstry of death" to anything but the Mosaic code. I am, of course, open to another interpretation that fits the context, but so far I haven't seen one yet.

I may have to do a partial or full recanting of what I said before. Therefore, let me do some study on this and get back to you.

I will let you know where I stand on Scripture and you can take it or leave it:

A principle or doctrine in the "New" Testament must have validation and support in the Tanakh in order for me to accept it. That is the direction I will be coming from.

Now, one thing is that some translations use something other than "ministry of death". Perhaps that can shed light on the issue.

I know that I already stand corrected as far as what Sha'ul wrote. However, I intend on looking the Aramaic and Greek to see what exactly he meant.

I totally agree; wouldn't it have been nice to have a copy of the other side of correspondence with Paul?

Oh, so very much.

Sometimes the Churches had a large number of Jews, other times they had many gentiles. It depends on the Church.

I am not negating this truth. I am simply saying that the majority of the time it was Jew-related. Sure, there were gentiles present.

I have never challenged God's plan with the Jews. I firmly believe that, as Paul wrote in Romans 11:26, "all Israel shall be saved." God is not through with Israel-of-the-flesh, even if the majority of Paul's fellow countrymen are in a state of unbelief in their Messiah.

Thanks, Muffler. I would highly recommend many of the other articles on that website as well.

In Christ,

Daniel

Thanks for the clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.

[muffler dragon]

Dear Daniel:

In regards to the 'christian-thinktank' article, the one thing that is somewhat disappointing (as I scrolled through) is that Glenn does not look at the original text in defining the word 'new' concerning the covenant. He spent all that time regarding olam and never looked at 'new'.

Oh well.

m.d.

[New_Wineskin]

Dear NW:

Just to let you know: I wasn't giving a complete blessing to your statements. I just understand what you are saying. There are still some things I disagree with, but that's one of the things I enjoy about discoursing with you. There is no judgment coming from you within your opinions, and I try to give the same back. The only time when I get heated or nasty is when I am attacked. Granted, I need to get that under check. But it's a work in progress.

You might want to check out my "Messianic Understanding of Grace" thread in Spirit-filled forum for some ideas as to the natural progression of things in my thinking.

Shalom,

m.d.
Ok . I didn't see any blessings or curses from your previous post and so took it as is without either . I took it that you understood and that is all I really desire in forums .:)

I will check out that other thread . It may help in my understanding . About 20 years ago , I was heading towards a Jewish Christianity type idea but the Lord never led me to take the next steps .

[Carl Carlson]

You cannot get rid of the 10 Commandments.

The Law, when used lawfully, is good. The Law shows the sinner his sin, which is necessary for one to come to repentance. If someone told me that I needed to be saved from my sin without knowing the Laws that I had broken, I would think that man crazy, and also be offended. I would become hard soil to the Word of God. But if someone lovingly explained to me that I had violated God's law and that the punishment that we all deserve is death, I would then understand my need for a savior. But if the law is used to open my eyes, it becomes good. I then have the hard soil of my heart plowed.

Every man considers himself good. Without the Law exposing our sin, we will see no need for salvation.

Matthew 19:16-26
The Rich Young Man
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
19Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

It sounds as though Jesus missed a course in modern evanglism. Why didn't he tell him to just believe in him and be saved? Did he miss the mark? No. He rather saved the young man from becomg a backsliding, false convert. Without showing the man that he indeed wasn't good and applying the commandments to his heart, the man wouldn't have seen the need for the Savior. He would have continued to value his own possession over God, breaking the first commandment. Jesus simply used the Law to plow the young man's heart.

Romans 7:7-13, 24-25
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The Law is both good and necessary. It is written on our hearts as our conscience. You can take them out of our schools, court rooms and government offices, but they still exist and we are still judged by them. They will still condemn us unless we turn to our Savior Jesus Christ and follow Him.

May God show us what is Holy and true. Glory be to God. Amen.

[9-iron]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did you see that. Christ lives in us! Remember we are a made a new all things old have passed away and we are new creature in Christ. The Bible also says we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Where? In Christ Jesus, but He was righteous.

As far as sin issues, the Bible also says 'where grace abounds, sin has no reign'. So NO, I don't live according to the OT law or instructions as to what is right or wrong. I live according the work of Christ living in me. The only time I err, is when I live on my own accord. I don't need a written instructions to tell me it is wrong to LUST! Christ living within me brings about conviction that such action is wrong.

Conviction doesn't mean, oops I did something I shouldn't done. It says, hey, you aren't living the righteousness that Christ has created in you. STOP IT!!

[Carl Carlson]

It's true that Christ is our righteousness. When God looks at the sinner who has been washed in Jesus blood of righteousness, he sees His Son. He accepts that sinner. But that doesn't mean that we can get rid of the law.

The Law is good for the sinner. The Christian can live by faith in Jesus Christ and live in God's grace. We live by faith and not by sight. The sinner is blind to his sins and there for needs the Law of the Ten Commandments. If I told someone that he had a $5,000 fine that he needed to pay he would think I was crazy. If I kept insisted that it needed to be paid, he would probably get upset and reject anything that I had to say. If I explained to him that he had been excessively speeding in a handicap and deaf child area, he would realize what he had done wrong and come to grips with the penalty. He needs to see the sin, the penalty and the sacrifice. Only then will he be ready to accept the Savior who paid his fine in full. This is God's grace.

[Harry the Heretic]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did you see that. Christ lives in us! Remember we are a made a new all things old have passed away and we are new creature in Christ. The Bible also says we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Where? In Christ Jesus, but He was righteous.

As far as sin issues, the Bible also says 'where grace abounds, sin has no reign'. So NO, I don't live according to the OT law or instructions as to what is right or wrong. I live according the work of Christ living in me. The only time I err, is when I live on my own accord. I don't need a written instructions to tell me it is wrong to LUST! Christ living within me brings about conviction that such action is wrong.

Conviction doesn't mean, oops I did something I shouldn't done. It says, hey, you aren't living the righteousness that Christ has created in you. STOP IT!!
True enough. But you have the law in a sense, abiding within you. It is also in this way that the righteousness of the believer exceeds that of the scribe, for in this "law" written upon our hearts there is no room for loopholes.

[9-iron]

True enough. But you have the law in a sense, abiding within you. It is also in this way that the righteousness of the believer exceeds that of the scribe, for in this "law" written upon our hearts there is no room for loopholes.


Good, thanks for finishing up my thought. Nice to see I am not a lone ranger.

[DanielRB]

Here is the Reader's Digest version of what I believe:


First, Jesus said that if your righteousness doesn't exceed that of the Pharisee's you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisees were under the Law, I presume in which they tried to uphold in order to be found righteous toward God. According to Romans it was a lost cause.

Now we look to see how we can obtain righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees. Well, Jesus said on the cross 'It Is Finished'. What was finished? His work of redeeming mankind? Yes, but much more. He fullfilled every requirement of the Law correct? Messianics claim He was fully in compliance with OT laws. No man could fullfill all the law, but Jesus did. He had to in order to be a spotless sacrific.

So when Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fullfill it, that is exactly what HE did. No let's look at scripture. Collossians says we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer liveth, but CHRIST LIVETH IN US. Did y