PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Christian Commandments



manichunter
Apr 21st 2009, 04:10 PM
I know some will think this a hard and controversial thread, but it is heart felt and honest. It is meant to share personal revelations and convictions learned in my last twelve years of salvation, experiences, and ever increasing search for truth and life.

If torah related subjects offends you, please accept my apology before hand and ignore my attempt to share and discuss a subject I believe to be very much Christian and doctrinally essential for a believers walk of faith and prosperity.


Now the information:

Are these two passages of Scriptures quoted by Jesus not a part of the Torah? Yes, they are a part of the Torah in both content, context, and intent.

Moreover, they are not new commandments as proven by there existence in the OT. Jesus was asked a specific queston when he qouted both of these passages. Later we discover in Scripture that He commands us to obey His commandments.

Where these two commandments meant to be isolated and separated from the Torah? I say no. They provided the purpose and motivation for the rest. But, hey, thats me and what I have learned and experienced.


De 6:1-9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - 1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:1&sr=1&t=nas) "Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it,
2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:2&sr=1&t=nas) so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
3 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:3&sr=1&t=nas) "O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.
4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:4&sr=1&t=nas) "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&sr=1&t=nas) "You R254 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R254) shall love the LORD your God with R255 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R255) all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:6&sr=1&t=nas) "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.
7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:7&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:8&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:9&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.


Le 19:17,18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:18&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - 17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:17&sr=1&t=nas) `You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. `18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.


Are the red highlighted parts Torah? Are saints required to live according to these instructions of Torah. If you say yes, then what. If no, then what.

Jesus did say obey His commandments (possesive used as in ownership). Was He just talking about these two elements of the Torah. If you say yes, then you are still being obediance to an aspect of the Torah. If you say no, then you are completely without commandments and most believe that questions have commandments (torah/instructions to follow).


What say you?

-SEEKING-
Apr 21st 2009, 04:25 PM
By Torah are you simply referring to the Old Testament?
Are you inferring that we are supposed to follow the Old Testament aka Torah and try to do what the Israelites couldn't do?
Just out of curiousity are you Jewish?

Galatians 3:23-29
"23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

Firstfruits
Apr 21st 2009, 05:57 PM
I know some will think this a hard and controversial thread, but it is heart felt and honest. It is meant to share personal revelations and convictions learned in my last twelve years of salvation, experiences, and ever increasing search for truth and life.

If torah related subjects offends you, please accept my apology before hand and ignore my attempt to share and discuss a subject I believe to be very much Christian and doctrinally essential for a believers walk of faith and prosperity.


Now the information:

Are these two passages of Scriptures quoted by Jesus not a part of the Torah? Yes, they are a part of the Torah in both content, context, and intent.

Moreover, they are not new commandments as proven by there existence in the OT. Jesus was asked a specific queston when he qouted both of these passages. Later we discover in Scripture that He commands us to obey His commandments.

Where these two commandments meant to be isolated and separated from the Torah? I say no. They provided the purpose and motivation for the rest. But, hey, thats me and what I have learned and experienced.


De 6:1-9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - 1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:1&sr=1&t=nas) "Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it,
2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:2&sr=1&t=nas) so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
3 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:3&sr=1&t=nas) "O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.
4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:4&sr=1&t=nas) "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&sr=1&t=nas) "You R254 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R254) shall love the LORD your God with R255 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R255) all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:6&sr=1&t=nas) "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.
7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:7&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:8&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:9&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.


Le 19:17,18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:18&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - 17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:17&sr=1&t=nas) `You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. `18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.


Are the red highlighted parts Torah? Are saints required to live according to these instructions of Torah. If you say yes, then what. If no, then what.

Jesus did say obey His commandments (possesive used as in ownership). Was He just talking about these two elements of the Torah. If you say yes, then you are still being obediance to an aspect of the Torah. If you say no, then you are completely without commandments and most believe that questions have commandments (torah/instructions to follow).


What say you?

As you know the first five books are the books of Moses. These are what God gave to Moses for Israel to follow, and also promises for those who are not Jews. Israel did not live according to the commandments and therefore all men whether Jew or Gentile became one under sin.

When Christ came Gods promise through the law was fulfilled and all men whether Jew or Gentile can be reconciled to God according to what is written in the Torah.

Do you therefore accept the Torah and all its promises?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Teke
Apr 21st 2009, 06:23 PM
Hey Manichunter,:)

First let me say, I don't know that questions have to have commandments, as you've proposed in your initial post.
This line of thought inclines me to think that you are a man of order. Order is likely a necessary thing in your spiritual walk. And that is good. I respect that. I also like order.

I believe the only place we will see any substantial order is in our order (aka rule of worship) of worship, which we see quite literally in churches (irregardless of whether we deem them right or wrong ). At least for me such order was of particular importance.

And I believe a traditional order of worship was maintained by the ancient church.

As to the "commandments" you have put forth. It is not unusual for such commandments to be taught in the manner Jesus has. Some of the OT prophets summed them up in such a condensed manner.

Think about this also. In Luke 16:16 Jesus says, "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is seeking to enter into it [paraphrase of what "pressing into it" means]

As for obedience, we are to be obedient to the faith of Christ. Which includes upholding His Church, of which He and the Apostles are the foundation.
In the next verse, 17, He says, "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail". This means that the smallest part of God's purposes behind the law will not fail to be accomplished.

When I was confused about the OT, God gave me one verse to come to understand. The word is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou mayest do it. It's not in heaven or in earth, it is in us. God puts it there, not us by our reading of the OT and doing what we've read.
That's just been my own experience.

Peace be with you,
Eve

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 06:36 PM
De 6: (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:4&sr=1&t=nas) "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&sr=1&t=nas) "You R254 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R254) shall love the LORD your God with R255 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en#R255) all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Le 19:17,18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:18&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) `18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

Are the red highlighted parts Torah?
Yes of course they are .


Are saints required to live according to these instructions of Torah


Not sure what you mean here and why saints ?

djh22.

Followtheway
Apr 21st 2009, 06:45 PM
We know that the wages of sin is death, but do we know what sin is? Sin is lawlessness, but more importantly means against mosaic law (613 laws). We know they are fulfilled, how? Yeshua said he came to fulfill the law not abolish the law. "And the word became flesh and tabernacled with us" the flesh is Yeshua and the law points to him, so he fulfilled the law by coming, did he abolish it? no, that means its not gone and has to be observed, how? by living a life like Yeshua. Did Yeshua follow every law, feast, etc? Yes he did, then how do we be like Christ but not follow anything he did? Were these commands given to Isreal? Yes, who is Isreal is it some people oversea's? no, by definition it is anyone who wrestles with the Lord or has been given power by the Lord. Yeshua said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." he also said "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 06:50 PM
I can't find one verse in my Bible that contains any such thing as 'Christian commandments'.

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 07:07 PM
De 6: (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:8&sr=1&t=nas) -9 "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:9&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Does that mean we should all wear tefillin on our arms and forehead and fix mezuzah to our doorposts ?

djh22.

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 07:10 PM
Does that mean we should all wear tefillin on our arms and forehead and fix mezuzah to our doorposts ?

djh22.

I think a lot of this depends on if your are more afraid of your friends and neighbors' opinions than loving God.

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 07:14 PM
Do you mean appearing to be Jewish ?

djh22

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 07:50 PM
Do you mean appearing to be Jewish ?

djh22

What does obeying God have to do with Jews?

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 08:03 PM
What does obeying God have to do with Jews?

I mean to the average onlooker a person with a small black box attached to his forehead would look Jewish would he not?
Likewise a house with a mezuzah fixed to each door post would be linked to the Jewish faith.

Jews also obey God you know.


djh22.

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 08:29 PM
I mean to the average onlooker a person with a small black box attached to his forehead would look Jewish would he not?
Likewise a house with a mezuzah fixed to each door post would be linked to the Jewish faith.

Jews also obey God you know.


djh22.

Most say Jesus wore one. Did He look like a Jew? Should that embarass you before your friends that you worship a Messiah that had a mezuzah on his doorpost and looked like a Jew?

Wearing a box on your head is Jewish, because it's a man made tradition. I wouldn't wear one. God didn't say make a box out of hide, put some Torah commands in it and stick it on your head. God is illustrating the process of putting His commandments on your heart, and instilling them in your house. Traditions are our way of expressing love to God. What about His way? Do we even care? If more dad's actually became the priests that God made them to be and taught their kids about the ways of God instead of tossing them like a nuisance into a chuch day care during services, we just might have a more faithful body of believers today, don't you think?

manichunter
Apr 21st 2009, 08:46 PM
By Torah are you simply referring to the Old Testament?
Are you inferring that we are supposed to follow the Old Testament aka Torah and try to do what the Israelites couldn't do?
Just out of curiousity are you Jewish?

Galatians 3:23-29
"23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

The word torah has multiple meanings and usages like the world church has come to mean multiple things and used for different things. People like me and you have decided to assign these meanings and give them legitimacy.

Church can mean a congregation/assembly of people, the greater body of Christ, a building where people meet for religious worship, a religious experience with a great emotional experience (this only applies to Afro Americans), and etc.

The word torah means multiple things as well. It is assigned to the first five books of the Bible. It is assigned to a collection of commandments, statutues, judgments, and ordinances. It is assigned to a legal term. It is assigned to oral laws that are outside of the first five books of the Bible.

I am using the one denoting the collection of commandments, statutues, judgments, and ordinances.

No I am not Jewish or trying to immulate a physical Jew. I am speaking about the same Jew Paul is talking about when he says that not all who call themselves are Jews.

I am not trying to observe torah for advantage, righteousness, or because I am trying to prove a point, but for the same reason Abraham did.

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 09:14 PM
Most say Jesus wore one. Did He look like a Jew? Should that embarass you before your friends that you worship a Messiah that had a mezuzah on his doorpost and looked like a Jew?
It wouldn't embarrass me in the slightest but I regret to say antisemitism does,I don't know where you live but around here it's rife.



If more dad's actually became the priests that God made them to be and taught their kids about the ways of God instead of tossing them like a nuisance into a chuch day care during services, we just might have a more faithful body of believers today, don't you think?
Yes I do and that is precisely the point I was trying to make from the OP that quoted Deuteronomy 6:1-9.

djh22.

th1bill
Apr 21st 2009, 09:47 PM
If torah related subjects offends you,

De 6:1-9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)
Le 19:17,18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:18&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - 17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=le+19:17&sr=1&t=nas)
... I think I finally have a grip on this Torah matter Manichunter. But I believe it is just wrong terminology. The Old Testament is the Jewish Bible and the first five books are the Pentateuch that Saul and every Fundamentalist Jew knows by heart. The Torah, on the other hand is an extra-Biblical historical record kept by the Jewish rulers that recorded the history of the Jewish people. (Fenris, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
... As for any portion of the Old Testament being disreguarded, I say Heresy! A man cannot possibly ever understand the New Testament except that he has read and reread the Jewish Bible many times. In fact, it is my position that the very best Commetary in the World on the Old Testament is the New, after all, though the folks recording the thoughts and words of God changed, the author is still God and who better to explain what God ment or thought than God?

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 10:19 PM
It wouldn't embarrass me in the slightest but I regret to say antisemitism does,I don't know where you live but around here it's rife.

Anti-semitism in some form is everywhere. It took us decades to toss the organized ones out of N. Idaho. God said it would be this way. And so it is. About as sad as when Jesus looked at Judas and prophecied His betrayal.



Yes I do and that is precisely the point I was trying to make from the OP that quoted Deuteronomy 6:1-9.


Amen. Praise God.

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 11:31 PM
Wearing a box on your head is Jewish, because it's a man made tradition.

Is Deuteronomy 6: 8-9 man made then ?

ח. וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל יָדֶךָ
בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ:
8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes.


ט. וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל מְזוּזֹת בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ:
9. And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.

In which case does it follow that Deuteronomy 6: 1-7 are also man made ?

djh22

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 11:37 PM
yeah. I know what it says. Usually when God wants us to fashion something physically, He's pretty specific, e.g. the menorah or tabernacle. And who in the Sinai desert had access to an entire Torah that he could tuck in a box? Most villages only had one copy of Torah. But I don't think that's the point. Most if not all of the instructions for a Phylactory are apocriphal, as are the instructions for fringes. Not that there is anything wrong with embellishing God's commands; practically every Jew does that with his Sukkah.

So what if I wear a jingle bell on my head with the She'ma in it? Is that outside of God's desciption here? What's the application? All day? Only in prayer? At sunset? Does it say?

By the way, I do have the She'ma inscribed on my doorpost, that one is pretty plain.

djh22
Apr 21st 2009, 11:41 PM
As a basic rule there are no man made rules,they are all at least hinted at in The Torah, interpretation is a different thing.

djh22

keck553
Apr 21st 2009, 11:48 PM
As a basic rule there are no man made rules,they are all at least hinted at in The Torah, interpretation is a different thing.

djh22

So this doesn't stem from a man made rule?

Mat 15:4-6
(4) "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'
(5) "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
(6) he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Who on earth would interpret Torah like that? They did the same thing people do to this day. Create reasons and shortcuts to disobey God.

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:35 AM
I am not trying to observe torah for advantage, righteousness, or because I am trying to prove a point, but for the same reason Abraham did.

Um....Abraham didn't observe the Torah because it didn't exist.

Galatians 3
"6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:43 AM
That's true for all people in all ages. Nothing's changed.

djh22
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:32 AM
So this doesn't stem from a man made rule?

Mat 15:4-6
(4) "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'
(5) "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
(6) he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by thisyou invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Who on earth would interpret Torah like that? They did the same thing people do to this day. Create reasons and shortcuts to disobey God.


Isn't Exodus 20:12 direct from God ?
Isn't there several interpretations of the word honour ?

I'm trying not to hijack the OP but I think you're distracting from the original point I was trying to make here -

Quote:
De 6: (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:8&sr=1&t=nas) -9 "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:9&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Does that mean we should all wear tefillin on our arms and forehead and fix mezuzah to our doorposts ?


Manichunter is asking about De 6:4 why not include De 6:8 et al.

Regards.
djh22

manichunter
Apr 22nd 2009, 11:22 AM
Um....Abraham didn't observe the Torah because it didn't exist.

Galatians 3
"6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Why did pharoah charge him with bearing false witness? Why did Abraham practice the offering system? Why did Abraham pay tithes? Any many other things that even Isaac and Jacob did as well that were in the torah, to include the sin of idolatry, adultery, and etc.

Followtheway
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:37 PM
Why did pharoah charge him with bearing false witness? Why did Abraham practice the offering system? Why did Abraham pay tithes? Any many other things that even Isaac and Jacob did as well that were in the torah, to include the sin of idolatry, adultery, and etc.

There was an oral law passed down from Adam on, until it became the Torah.

Kahtar
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:42 PM
Um....Abraham didn't observe the Torah because it didn't exist.
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:45 PM
Why did pharoah charge him with bearing false witness? Why did Abraham practice the offering system? Why did Abraham pay tithes? Any many other things that even Isaac and Jacob did as well that were in the torah, to include the sin of idolatry, adultery, and etc.

1. Not sure how to answer the Pharoah question.
2. I guess he was grateful to God.
3. Besides the tenth he gave Melchizedek, I don't remember any other tithe.
4. Remember just because Isaac and Jacob did many other things, they did it out of gratitude, no one TOLD them to do it by any law.

You know, Galatians and Hebrews talk pretty intensely about the law.

Hebrews Chapter 8 would be a good start.

"5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
"13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

Teke
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:47 PM
Um....Abraham didn't observe the Torah because it didn't exist.

Galatians 3
"6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Torah didn't exist, but law in the land did. All that Abraham did is not found in Torah/law. The law of the land at the time was that of Khummarabi. We see such played out in examples like Hagar, and Tamar whom Judah wanted to burn etc. all associated with the current law of the land.
As scripture says, all governemnt and authority given is of God, and we are subject to it.

Kahtar
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:24 PM
The law of the land at the time was that of Khummarabi.It doesn't say that Abraham obeyed the statutes, commandments and laws of Khummarabi, or the 'law of the land'. God said that Abraham obeyed HIS statutes, commandments and laws.
If God said it was His laws, I'll not argue with Him, or try to change His words.

Firstfruits
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:51 PM
It doesn't say that Abraham obeyed the statutes, commandments and laws of Khummarabi, or the 'law of the land'. God said that Abraham obeyed HIS statutes, commandments and laws.
If God said it was His laws, I'll not argue with Him, or try to change His words.

Hi Kahtar,

With regards to the following scripture is someone that is uncircumcised regarded to be under the law?

Rom 4:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Gen 17:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Jer 9:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

Ezek 44:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=26&CHAP=44&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Thanks and God bless You!!!

Firstfruits

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:05 PM
Isn't Exodus 20:12 direct from God ?
Isn't there several interpretations of the word honour ?

I'm trying not to hijack the OP but I think you're distracting from the original point I was trying to make here -

Quote:
De 6: (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:5&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:8&sr=1&t=nas) -9 "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=de+6:9&sr=1&t=nas) "You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Does that mean we should all wear tefillin on our arms and forehead and fix mezuzah to our doorposts ?


Manichunter is asking about De 6:4 why not include De 6:8 et al.

Regards.
djh22

I think Torah should be between anyone's eyeballs who walks in faith (that's where our brain resides) and in thier hands (that's what we do stuff with). It's a commmand. If someone wants to manifest that command by crafting a box and sticking it on their head, then by all means, go for it. Personally I would rather have Torah in my head and written on my heart by the indwelt Holy Spirit of God than pasted to the outside of my face (which is the intent of the command anyway).

Deu 6:6 "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on yourheart.

Did you know that rabbinic tradition has God Himself wearing teffilin that bears the name of Israel?

This is a hotly debated command as to whether this command is to be taken literally or figuratively. Teffilin itself is tradition; God does not describe the leather box and straps. That being said, Jesus most certainly bound Teffilin to His head and hands (forearm and hand are the same word in Hebrew). He also critisized some religious leaders for broading them. One must be careful about intent.

Although Teffilin (not God's command) is consistant with other traditions In the Near East, it was once common for blood covenant partners to exchange amulet-like pouches which contained tokens, or even full copies, of their covenant obligations to one another. These were worn as bracelets or necklaces.

Teke
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:10 PM
It doesn't say that Abraham obeyed the statutes, commandments and laws of Khummarabi, or the 'law of the land'. God said that Abraham obeyed HIS statutes, commandments and laws.
If God said it was His laws, I'll not argue with Him, or try to change His words.

Whatever law exists it does so because of God. All belongs to Him alone. I see no difference.

I do not take the side of the 'higher critics' which state there was no law before Sinai. Mankind was lawless before the flood, not before Sinai. That is a noteable difference which scripture makes clear.

Not to mention you would be hard pressed to explain what laws are being observed before Sinai without knowing of the khummarabi code. As some do not agree, or, are not even written in the laws after Sinai.

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:28 PM
I'm not so sure. We're all wildly speculating. The confusion comes when one thinks of Torah as the covenant between God and Israel. Torah is not a covenant. I suggest the 'lawlessness' came from the crossbreeding of humans and satan's attempt to spoil the bloodline of Messiah. Even Fenris will disagree, but I suggest that God certainly left Adam with some if not all of God's instructions. Otherwise Noah would have no idea what a 'clean animal' would be. Just because other 'laws' aren't specifically mentioned it doesn't mean they didn't exist. But you have one example - Noah was certainly familiar with God's food laws. Why?

Teke
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:01 PM
I suggest the 'lawlessness' came from the crossbreeding of humans and satan's attempt to spoil the bloodline of Messiah.

I don't ascribe to the "crossbreeding" of humans. What you likely believe were actual angels from heaven breeding with human women, I see as men dedicated to God you fell into corruption with some women.


Otherwise Noah would have no idea what a 'clean animal' would be. Just because other 'laws' aren't specifically mentioned it doesn't mean they didn't exist. But you have one example - Noah was certainly familiar with God's food laws. Why?

They were clean sacrifices because Noah was clean in offering them. So they were acceptable/clean sacrifices. What is written says nothing about "food". Noah didn't eat them, he burnt them on the "altar" he built. And it doesn't say what kind of animals they were, so you don't know if they were clean according to the law from Sinai.

I believe the "altar" is more significant than anything else. Building altars is something all of mankind has done from the beginning. Whether they built them to the right god or not is another subject (even pagans built altars). Obviously Noah built his to the One true God, and was right in what he did from God's point of view. Altars for sacrifice are a continual theme in scripture, from Abel and Cain onward.

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:29 PM
I don't ascribe to the "crossbreeding" of humans. What you likely believe were actual angels from heaven breeding with human women, I see as men dedicated to God you fell into corruption with some women.

I don't think we can reconcile our differences of belief on this at this time. The context is buried deep in the Hebraic terms used.


They were clean sacrifices because Noah was clean in offering them. So they were acceptable/clean sacrifices. What is written says nothing about "food". Noah didn't eat them, he burnt them on the "altar" he built. And it doesn't say what kind of animals they were, so you don't know if they were clean according to the law from Sinai.

You're guessing. We know what GOD defines as a clean animal. God says His word never changes. That means God doesn't just 'come up with something on the fly'. A pig has always been unclean and always will be unclean. God says so, and that's that. You can play Scriptural gymnastics to avoid it or refuse to believe it, but the belief doesn't change what God says.

The quantity of clean animals brough on board were for both eating and for sacrifice. Obviously the stock needed more quantities for replenishment for both eating and sacrifice.



I believe the "altar" is more significant than anything else. Building altars is something all of mankind has done from the beginning. Whether they built them to the right god or not is another subject (even pagans built altars). Obviously Noah built his to the One true God, and was right in what he did from God's point of view. Altars for sacrifice are a continual theme in scripture, from Abel and Cain onward.

Probably. The issue isn't the alter, but the image we build it in. The Golden Calf was constructed to worship Elohim; they even called His Name. The problem was the Golden Calf was build in man's image. Man can not worship God his way, in their image. It doesn't work that way. It's either God's way, or it's unprofitable and useless. The leadership in the 1st Century also were worshipping a Golden Calf. They were obeying God their way, not God's way. Jesus had a lot to say about that.

If I learn only one thing in life, it will be to live in God's way, not in my image of Him.

Firstfruits
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:44 PM
I don't think we can reconcile our differences of belief on this at this time. The context is buried deep in the Hebraic terms used.


You're guessing. We know what GOD defines as a clean animal. God says His word never changes. That means God doesn't just 'come up with something on the fly'. A pig has always been unclean and always will be unclean. God says so, and that's that. You can play Scriptural gymnastics to avoid it or refuse to believe it, but the belief doesn't change what God says.

The quantity of clean animals brough on board were for both eating and for sacrifice. Obviously the stock needed more quantities for replenishment for both eating and sacrifice.



Probably. The issue isn't the alter, but the image we build it in. The Golden Calf was constructed to worship Elohim; they even called His Name. The problem was the Golden Calf was build in man's image. Man can not worship God his way, in their image. It doesn't work that way. It's either God's way, or it's unprofitable and useless. The leadership in the 1st Century also were worshipping a Golden Calf. They were obeying God their way, not God's way. Jesus had a lot to say about that.

If I learn only one thing in life, it will be to live in God's way, not in my image of Him.

If that which is unclean will always remain unclean then Jew and Gentile as God has said are not only unrighteous/unclean but will remain so, unless we believe the following.

Acts 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

1 Tim 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim 4:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Can that which is unclean be cleansed or not?

Firstfruits

Teke
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:52 PM
You're guessing. We know what GOD defines as a clean animal. God says His word never changes. That means God doesn't just 'come up with something on the fly'. A pig has always been unclean and always will be unclean. God says so, and that's that. You can play Scriptural gymnastics to avoid it or refuse to believe it, but the belief doesn't change what God says.

Last I recall, God said to Peter,

Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Nothing God created is of itself unclean.

Doesn't take scriptural gymnastics to realize this. In the beginning God declared everything He created "good".

Firstfruits
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:57 PM
Last I recall, God said to Peter,

Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Nothing God created is of itself unclean.

Doesn't take scriptural gymnastics to realize this. In the beginning God declared everything He created "good".

I think that's a "snap"!!!!!!

Firstfruits

djh22
Apr 22nd 2009, 07:08 PM
I think Torah should be between anyone's eyeballs who walks in faith (that's where our brain resides) and in thier hands (that's what we do stuff with). It's a commmand. If someone wants to manifest that command by crafting a box and sticking it on their head, then by all means, go for it. Personally I would rather have Torah in my head and written on my heart by the indwelt Holy Spirit of God than pasted to the outside of my face (which is the intent of the command anyway).


I couldn't agree more.



Did you know that rabbinic tradition has God Himself wearing teffilin that bears the name of Israel?
Yes I am aware of that.



This is a hotly debated command as to whether this command is to be taken literally or figuratively. Teffilin itself is tradition; God does not describe the leather box and straps.

I understood that when God told moses the commandment he also told him how exactly to fulfill it, God's word to Moses was then passed on to Joshua and so on and were later written in the Talmud.

Best.
djh22.

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 07:55 PM
If that which is unclean will always remain unclean then Jew and Gentile as God has said are not only unrighteous/unclean but will remain so, unless we believe the following.

Acts 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

1 Tim 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim 4:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Can that which is unclean be cleansed or not?

Firstfruits

Wow, that's a stretch of context. The Scripture in Acts is referring to Peter's incorrect man-made view of Gentiles. People, FF, not animals. The Jewish tradition saw Gentiles as ritually unclean, therefore not fit to dine with. Nowhere, anywhere in the vastness of eternity did God ever say a Gentile was unclean. God says that the man made tradition is wrong. So now that Peter has learned the Gentiles are ritually clean, does that mean he should eat them?

The meat issue is regarding whether they were sacrificed to idols. Many, many members of pagan families came to faith in Messiah, but that didn't guarantee the other family members didn't serve meats sacrificed to idols. This is the context. It has nothing to do with pigs or shrimp.

Teke
Apr 22nd 2009, 09:48 PM
Wow, that's a stretch of context. The Scripture in Acts is referring to Peter's incorrect man-made view of Gentiles. People, FF, not animals. The Jewish tradition saw Gentiles as ritually unclean, therefore not fit to dine with. Nowhere, anywhere in the vastness of eternity did God ever say a Gentile was unclean. God says that the man made tradition is wrong. So now that Peter has learned the Gentiles are ritually clean, does that mean he should eat them?

The meat issue is regarding whether they were sacrificed to idols. Many, many members of pagan families came to faith in Messiah, but that didn't guarantee the other family members didn't serve meats sacrificed to idols. This is the context. It has nothing to do with pigs or shrimp.

Keck, let me ask you a question. Why did God give Israel food laws/regulations?

manichunter
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:07 AM
Keck, let me ask you a question. Why did God give Israel food laws/regulations?


Health and safety reasons, plus the life of a thing is in the blood, and God claims that as His own. No to the rare cooked foods. LOL :lol:

Followtheway
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:18 AM
The writings of Paul are used out of context more than any other teachings, is not Yeshua's teachings more important than any other disciple of his? Did he not say over and over to follow his example, to keep his commands, and most of all NOT to sin. Sin by definition is going against the 613 laws. So, who do we follow Christ or Paul (whom no one even understands)?

manichunter
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:58 PM
The writings of Paul are used out of context more than any other teachings, is not Yeshua's teachings more important than any other disciple of his? Did he not say over and over to follow his example, to keep his commands, and most of all NOT to sin. Sin by definition is going against the 613 laws. So, who do we follow Christ or Paul (whom no one even understands)?


I feel the same way in sorts.

I believe this confusion is caused by the enemy, for Scripture says that God is not the author of confusion. The devil is however an expert in confusion. What better way to confusion a group of people than to take what keeps them united, in agreement, and on one accord.

Yes, all believers are united in Jesus. However, this has not proven to be enough in regards to God's people being one in operation and function.

Firstfruits
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:06 PM
Wow, that's a stretch of context. The Scripture in Acts is referring to Peter's incorrect man-made view of Gentiles. People, FF, not animals. The Jewish tradition saw Gentiles as ritually unclean, therefore not fit to dine with. Nowhere, anywhere in the vastness of eternity did God ever say a Gentile was unclean. God says that the man made tradition is wrong. So now that Peter has learned the Gentiles are ritually clean, does that mean he should eat them?

The meat issue is regarding whether they were sacrificed to idols. Many, many members of pagan families came to faith in Messiah, but that didn't guarantee the other family members didn't serve meats sacrificed to idols. This is the context. It has nothing to do with pigs or shrimp.

No stretch of context as i have used both examples, as both are cleansed in the same way.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Teke
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:12 PM
Health and safety reasons, plus the life of a thing is in the blood, and God claims that as His own. No to the rare cooked foods. LOL :lol:

While I'm sure that sounds like a logical reason to you. The reality is that it was a fast appointed for them until the Messiah came. The Apsotles at the first council of Jerusalem decided that such was not necessary to continue. I don't mean that fasting was refuted, just not the one the Mosaic law gave Israel. In Acts the Apostles give a clear directive to abstain from blood (meat that is not kosher).

This was continued in by the church, and still is in the ancient churches. A return to Eden sort of ideal is seen in abstaining from meat and the byproducts of meat. However, it is not a command to the churches. It is a prescription for the fasts of the churches. Lent being the strictess of these fasts, with absolutely no meat, not even fish as it has a backbone and is considered 'meat'. However, wine is allowed on the weekends. As that is also a prescription from scripture for our bodily needs.

I do my best to follow these guidelines given by the Apostolic church. And even though it is much easier for people to do this now, with all the alternatives we have in our grocery stores, nobody is perfect. That we are not perfect we confess for forgiveness, and move on with our Lord.

The authority overseeing us, such as our mother the Apostolic church, is who we try to be obedient to. On the other hand, Jews remain obedient to Moses, but the church wasn't called to Moses.

Followtheway
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:58 PM
There alot of mistakes as far a names and terms go. If you are a jew then by definition you are from Judah since the Romans began to call those from Judah, Jews for short. We know that not all are from Judah. Gentile is actually in reference to a Heathen or a Pagan. the bible tells us that we are no longer Gentiles in the flesh when we follow the Lord. Isreal is the name for anyone who wrestles with the Lord and is given power from the Lord.

Under the current circumstances yes, these laws are for Isreal, not the country, but those that have the power from the Lord.

On the subject of cleaness, There are 2 reasons to not mess with things unclean, health reasons and ritual reasons. The animals called unclean truly are bad to eat, as for ritual purposes let me give you this example. If your children were outside playing in the mud and you called them to come in, do you want them to come in with mud all over or do you want them to get the hose and clean of the mud before they enter your house? As far a Peter's vision of the blanket coming down. Peter would not so much as eat with a Gentile, the blanket came down 3 times and Peter never killed and ate, but immediatly after 3 Gentiles came for him and sure enough he went and ate with them.

Teke
Apr 23rd 2009, 02:41 PM
Followtheway, health and ritual are not spoken of in scripture in relation to food. When Israel was in the wilderness 40 years, they were on the strictest fast known. Manna, the bread of heaven. In their weakness they cried out to God for meat and He gave them quails.

If it was really about health and ritual, wouldn't you think that the manna would have continued.

And then of course there were the times of famine, when they had nothing to eat, and ate dung and even children....not healthy or ritualistic.

The common theme is fasting and feasting.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:31 PM
No stretch of context as i have used both examples, as both are cleansed in the same way.

God bless you!

FirstfruitsContext is everything. And as we see Peter explains clearly what the vision was about. It was about men/people/Gentiles. It was not about food. First Peter explains to Cornelius.

Acts 10:28 - Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

He doesn't say that God has shown him not to call any 'food' unclean. And then Peter explains, in detail, what the vision meant to those in Jerusalem. And not once does he say it had anything to do with food.

Acts 11:4-18
4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 6 When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

It's amazing to me that people attempt to change Peter's word's to make this about what we do or do not eat when it clearly has nothing to do with that. :dunno:

God Bless!
Denise

Teke
Apr 23rd 2009, 04:44 PM
It's amazing to me that people attempt to change Peter's word's to make this about what we do or do not eat when it clearly has nothing to do with that. :dunno:

God Bless!
Denise


I haven't made it about Peter's words, but rather about God's words to Peter. God said the same thing to Peter as He did in the beginning. That being that everything He created is good.

Are you saying that everything God created isn't good?

keck553
Apr 23rd 2009, 05:41 PM
There's a difference between "good" and "fit". Just because someone in Temple times was ritually unclean doesn't mean he was 'bad'. It doesn't mean he sinned. It simply means his flesh was unfit to present before God. Lot's of things aren't 'fit' for human consumption and it has nothing to do with them not being 'good'.

keck553
Apr 23rd 2009, 05:43 PM
No stretch of context as i have used both examples, as both are cleansed in the same way.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

It is not edifying to God to argue this point further.

God bless you!

Teke
Apr 23rd 2009, 06:25 PM
There's a difference between "good" and "fit". Just because someone in Temple times was ritually unclean doesn't mean he was 'bad'. It doesn't mean he sinned. It simply means his flesh was unfit to present before God. Lot's of things aren't 'fit' for human consumption and it has nothing to do with them not being 'good'.

Your still not explaining the WHY of the matter.
Which goes beyond the bounds of what is written and is only explainable in the Eucharistic gathering. The only fit flesh for consumption is the body and blood of our Lord. But that is not in the Mosaic law.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 23rd 2009, 08:20 PM
I haven't made it about Peter's words, but rather about God's words to Peter. God said the same thing to Peter as He did in the beginning. That being that everything He created is good.

Are you saying that everything God created isn't good?Absolutely everything God created is good! No doubt. Everything is good is not the same as everything being good for food. For example, things like lobsters and crabs and shrimp eat waste products in our oceans. They are good for that. Yet, they are harvested for food and our oceans are full of waste. The same can be applied to pigs. God's waste disposal system. Yet because the are bred almost solely for food, we deal with mountains (literally) of food waste in our landfills and water treatment facilities. So, in answer to your question, no I am NOT saying God made anything that is not good. ;)

God Bless!
Denise

Teke
Apr 23rd 2009, 08:58 PM
Absolutely everything God created is good! No doubt. Everything is good is not the same as everything being good for food. For example, things like lobsters and crabs and shrimp eat waste products in our oceans. They are good for that. Yet, they are harvested for food and our oceans are full of waste. The same can be applied to pigs. God's waste disposal system. Yet because the are bred almost solely for food, we deal with mountains (literally) of food waste in our landfills and water treatment facilities. So, in answer to your question, no I am NOT saying God made anything that is not good. ;)

God Bless!
Denise

Then it's a conservation and or ecological subject in your understanding? I'd agree with that. That would be common ground for us all to understand a bit more.

You previously said it didn't have anything to do with what we do or don't eat.
Now do you see what I mean. It is also good that we see how this all converges together. Helps get a better overall picture. :)

Studyin'2Show
Apr 23rd 2009, 11:50 PM
Then it's a conservation and or ecological subject in your understanding? I'd agree with that. That would be common ground for us all to understand a bit more.

You previously said it didn't have anything to do with what we do or don't eat.
Now do you see what I mean. It is also good that we see how this all converges together. Helps get a better overall picture. :)It's always a great day when we can agree, Teke. :D My previous comment concerning it not having anything to do with what we eat was specifically about the vision spoken of in Acts 10 and 11. When you mentioned the Genesis account when God states that everything He had created was good, I completely agreed.

God Bless!
Denise

Followtheway
Apr 24th 2009, 03:34 AM
Followtheway, health and ritual are not spoken of in scripture in relation to food. When Israel was in the wilderness 40 years, they were on the strictest fast known. Manna, the bread of heaven. In their weakness they cried out to God for meat and He gave them quails.

If it was really about health and ritual, wouldn't you think that the manna would have continued.

And then of course there were the times of famine, when they had nothing to eat, and ate dung and even children....not healthy or ritualistic.

The common theme is fasting and feasting.

They were given manna because they had no other food to eat in the wilderness, They wanted quail because they were tired of manna. The times of famine that the dung was sold at a price was by their own doing not the Lords.

Teke
Apr 24th 2009, 02:32 PM
It's always a great day when we can agree, Teke. :D

:)


My previous comment concerning it not having anything to do with what we eat was specifically about the vision spoken of in Acts 10 and 11.

Apparently it touches on more than people and food.


When you mentioned the Genesis account when God states that everything He had created was good, I completely agreed.

God Bless!
Denise

Really, what a person eats depends on the person. There is no clear directive from Jesus on what to eat or not eat. He ate with sinners and drank wine, which they condemned Him for doing. I believe we all agree that was not sacreligious.

I believe moderaton is key, as gluttony is a sin. But there are many things that some people cannot eat irregardless of any fasting types. I believe whatever is necessary for the person is alright. Diabetics cannot adhere to most fasts. I myself, cannot adhere to all of what either the OT or the church perscribes foodwise. My body would reject it quickly. Doesn't mean I should force it upon myself just because it's written in scripture or because the church perscribes it. I do however seek for ways to carry such fasts out to the best of my ability.

So while I understand the intention is good, it is not applicable to all. And, God is able to provide a way for us nonetheless. IOW some people are on fasts designed by God, not themselves, and not of their choosing, in their walk of salvation.

Teke
Apr 24th 2009, 02:33 PM
They were given manna because they had no other food to eat in the wilderness, They wanted quail because they were tired of manna. The times of famine that the dung was sold at a price was by their own doing not the Lords.

Oh, but it is all the Lord's doing IMHO. He always provides our needs.;)

I stand by the common theme of fasting and feasting. As these two concepts relate to our spiritual growth.

keck553
Apr 24th 2009, 03:23 PM
Last I recall, God said to Peter,

Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Nothing God created is of itself unclean.

Doesn't take scriptural gymnastics to realize this. In the beginning God declared everything He created "good".

You do realize God was talking about EATING WITH GENTILES, do you not? It had nothing to do with pigs and shrimp. Nada. nothing. If there is only one allusion to food (food defined by GOD), it is that 'RITUALLY unclean' food is clean. You do know the difference between ritually clean and not fit for eating, don't you? The teaching you're forwarding is twisting Scripture and perverting God's holy commandments. By your definition you may as well eat a bowl of rat poison.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I am growing weary of answering this teaching.

Teke
Apr 24th 2009, 04:39 PM
You do realize God was talking about EATING WITH GENTILES, do you not? It had nothing to do with pigs and shrimp. Nada. nothing.

Did you read mine and Studyin's previous posts?


If there is only one allusion to food (food defined by GOD), it is that 'RITUALLY unclean' food is clean. You do know the difference between ritually clean and not fit for eating, don't you?

How about you explain what you mean.


The teaching you're forwarding is twisting Scripture and perverting God's holy commandments. By your definition you may as well eat a bowl of rat poison.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I am growing weary of answering this teaching.

Let's not get disrespectful.

You don't have to answer a teaching. Just explain your understanding.

keck553
Apr 24th 2009, 05:00 PM
yes, yes I will, and sorry.

keck553
Apr 24th 2009, 05:14 PM
First of all, realize that Peter is put into a trance whereupon God gives him a vision. It is obvious that God is intending to teach him something important. But the context implies that the revelation he is about to receive is intended for his immediate situation.


The vision, as the Scripture indicates (and you've read this), is one where a cloth is spread out with all sorts of unclean foods on it. A voice from heaven accompanied the food, instructing Peter to eat it. Peter responds that he had never eaten such things and that he was not about to do it now!


Verse 19 tell us that Peter took some time thinking about the vision. He did not understand what it meant. Surely, if it was really intended to teach him to change his eating habits, this perceptive man of God would have realized it. Also, as a disciple of Jesus, why wouldn't the Master have previously taught Peter such an important change of God's mind?


As the Scripture progresses, we see that God had something else in mind. Just as Peter was contemplating that meaning of the vision, we read in verse 19,


“The Spirit said to him, ‘Behold, three men are looking for you. But arise, go downstairs, and accompany them without misgivings; for I have sent them Myself.”


The Spirit of God interrupted Peter’s attempts to figure out the vision by giving him the correct interpretation. Peter finally realised the vision was about people! Up to this point in his life, Peter, Like most Jewish people was accustomed to avoiding any table fellowship with Gentiles. Gentiles were treated as if they were unclean and to be avoided, that is unfit - most likely because one didn't know if they were going to eat something sacrificed to idols. This was a man-made rule, not Torah.


To encourage him to pursue this relationship - even to the point of entering Cornelius’ house,God gave this vision to Peter.
The meaning of the vision is summarized in verse 28;


“And he said to them, ‘You yourselves know how unlawful (according to man-made tradiion, not Torah) if is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean’.”


Notice that, at this point, Peter is very clear concerning the meaning of the vision he received from God. God told him “not to call any man unholy or unclean.” Therefore, the issue was people and not food.


Unclean foods are still unclean foods (Leviticus 11). God doesn't change His mind or pull the rug out from under people who trust His Word and obey His Holy commands. The point of the vision was to teach Peter to understand and relate to people in a way that he had not previously understood.


This passage does not teach that the dietary instructions of the Torah to be changed. Rather, it is a passage in which God was teaching Peter to reach out to non-Jews for the sake of the Messiah. At the same time, Peter is never told by the God to change his own eating customs and practices.


Not one Scripture in the NT has any believer actually eating unclean foods. Not one.

Teke
Apr 24th 2009, 06:31 PM
Guess you'll have to dumb it down some more for me. You don't even have to use those scriptures as reference. Just tell me what your understanding of "ritually clean" and "not fit for eating" is.

keck553
Apr 24th 2009, 08:43 PM
Guess you'll have to dumb it down some more for me. You don't even have to use those scriptures as reference. Just tell me what your understanding of "ritually clean" and "not fit for eating" is.

God forbid I have to have a modicum of intelligence to follow Him. Anyway, "tamei" does not mean 'dirty', and the opposite "tahor" (pure) means more than physically clean. A creature is tamei (not fit or 'unclean') because God forbids it's consumption by man. Similarly the word "sheketz' (abomination) does not mean that the birds or fish in question are 'repulsive'; they are to be regarded as repulsive because God's commandments forbids them.

The only hint or clue that the Bible gives as to a reason for these food regulations is that in almost every instance where the food laws are referred to, we find a call to holiness. In Lev, chapter 11, the chapter concludes: "For I am Adonai, your God; sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy (Lev 11:44). Yeshua Adonai repeats this command again according to Matthew:

Mat 5:48
(48) "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I suppose if the commandment just isn't sufficient, a better understanding of the root of the matter should be explored.

The emphasis on holiness as the reason or the purpose of the clean/unclean laws is an aspect of broader requirements that God's people learn to distinguish 'holy from common' - not only in food, but in all areas of life - sexual, moral, ethical and spitual. The laws do not stand isolated from teh purposes and goals, from the disciplines and demands that are part of who we are to grow into as new creatures, separated by God from our entire old nature that Paul so emphatically exhorts us to walk away from.

We can get so confused with man-made tradtions of the 1st century Jews and God's laws, and the centuries of Scripture-twisting to please the desires of Christians and their aversion to anything they saw as 'Jewish' (even if it came from God) because of their political cultural and theological ideologies. It's a difficult path to clear the path of the bushes, sticks and stumbling blocks of religious traditionan and bias that inevitably amasses, whether it be Judaism or Christiantiy. But what of God? Is God interested in the man-made tenets and false teachings inside Judaism? Christianity? No.

Another example:

"Then the pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

First of all, right off the bat, you know what the discussion is about. It's not about animal flesh. It's about the 'bread' becoming defiled by touching it without ceremonially washing one's hands. (a man made tradition, not Torah).

Now, look at verse 19:

"...[thus] purifying all foods"

The word 'foods' in Greek 'bromah' which as stated above speaks of things permitted by Torah. Even without the evidence of the Greek word, we can logically analze this by context. Yeshua Adonai was speaking to JEWS. Did Jews consider pigs food? NO! Therefore how can we conclude He was talking about pigs?

Now, go to verses 18 and 19:

"Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and is eliminated..."

Does eating bread with unwashed hands enter the heart? No. Beef? No. What about a pig? Does it break a commandment of God? Yes. Does this transgression go into the heart? It does mine. If you follow the rest of His examples in the following verses,, you'll see Yeshua Adonai is speaking of breaking God's commandments:

"And He said "What coems out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, muders, thefts, coveteousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blastphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

The written Torah is not being challenged here. It is the traditions of men that were added to the Biblical mandates that are being questioned.

dan
Apr 25th 2009, 11:41 AM
I can't find one verse in my Bible that contains any such thing as 'Christian commandments'.

...Gentile Commandments?

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

Teke
Apr 25th 2009, 02:01 PM
I understand about Jewish tradition and what was addressed in scripture. But that's not what I'm asking about. My fault I guess, because of how I phrased my original question of "ritually clean" and "not fit for food/eating".
Keck, let me rephrase the question from this post.


Guess you'll have to dumb it down some more for me. You don't even have to use those scriptures as reference. Just tell me what your understanding of "ritually clean" and "not fit for eating" is.

How do you understand "ritually clean" and "not fit for eating" in the context of the Person of Christ and the Church?

keck553
Apr 25th 2009, 03:40 PM
God said garbage eaters are not food. Isn't that enough? Who am I to argue with the Creator?

Teke
Apr 26th 2009, 09:21 PM
God said garbage eaters are not food. Isn't that enough? Who am I to argue with the Creator?

Well if your sitting in Moses seat and only deal with Israel, then that might be enough.

But sitting with Christ, that isn't enough. He has the whole world to deal with. So does He tell those who live somewhere that only have something considered 'unclean' in scripture, to eat, that they should starve before they eat such.
IOW is it more important than salvation of God? Is it disrespectful to God or salvation?

When you read about all the animals slaughtered for sacrifices, have you ever thought how many people that food could have fed. Grant it some were eatable by the priests, as that was a support system for them.

For me, the main point that comes across is that of sacrifice and eating. And although both sacrifices and eating had to do with animals in the OT, I don't believe that understanding the animal was as necessary as understanding the concept. ie. that the church would one day celebrate the Incarnation, Transfiguration and Ressurection in a eucharistic fashion. Eating the ONE true sacrifice of His body and blood.
The ultimate mystery to our minds. :saint:

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 03:49 PM
...Gentile Commandments?

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

So as a Gentile I can steal, lie and cheat on my wife? I don't see those commandments above. :rolleyes:

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 03:50 PM
Well if your sitting in Moses seat and only deal with Israel, then that might be enough.

But sitting with Christ, that isn't enough. He has the whole world to deal with. So does He tell those who live somewhere that only have something considered 'unclean' in scripture, to eat, that they should starve before they eat such.
IOW is it more important than salvation of God? Is it disrespectful to God or salvation?

When you read about all the animals slaughtered for sacrifices, have you ever thought how many people that food could have fed. Grant it some were eatable by the priests, as that was a support system for them.

For me, the main point that comes across is that of sacrifice and eating. And although both sacrifices and eating had to do with animals in the OT, I don't believe that understanding the animal was as necessary as understanding the concept. ie. that the church would one day celebrate the Incarnation, Transfiguration and Ressurection in a eucharistic fashion. Eating the ONE true sacrifice of His body and blood.
The ultimate mystery to our minds. :saint:

You have Scripture and the Holy Spirit to teach you. Does that leave you with excuse?

Teke
Apr 27th 2009, 05:19 PM
You have Scripture and the Holy Spirit to teach you. Does that leave you with excuse?

Not only the Holy Spirit and scripture, but also the Church.
I haven't excused anything.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 05:37 PM
The church? What do you mean? Which church? There are 30,000 sects. Who's right? Which one? Show me the Scripture that supports such an idea.

Teke
Apr 27th 2009, 06:20 PM
The church? What do you mean? Which church? There are 30,000 sects. Who's right? Which one? Show me the Scripture that supports such an idea.

Do you believe that Jesus and the Apostles established a visible church, invisible church, or both? I say both. That is why a lot of people can't find it.
It is up to you to seek Him out "haply" (Acts 17:27). :saint:


Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 11:04 PM
That doesn't answer my questions Teke.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 27th 2009, 11:54 PM
Isa 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Isa 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Isa 58:8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.
Isa 58:9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;
Isa 58:10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:

Teke
Apr 28th 2009, 01:44 PM
That doesn't answer my questions Teke.

The ancient church isn't visible to the whole world. And yet it exists in the visible world. I would advise you to seek out the ancient church, as it has all the answers your looking for. I am only one person of the ancient faith, so I do not hold all the answers as the Apostolic church does. So while I can answer some questions to the best of my ability, I do not hold the fullness of truth as the church does.

Side note; I did ask about a subject we touched on in one of these threads on the clean unclean and blood subject. If you recall I said that my church has different opinions about a woman taking communion when she is in her cycle and or after child bearing.

The issue of the subject is deliberated in the reverance of holy communion. The body and blood of our Lord is most holy in my church. And because the life is in the blood, when one partakes of this holy mystery (as it is known in my church) His life is imparted into theirs (which means literally also, as afterward it is also literally surging within ones blood). It is out of reverance that, to that which is holy, that we do not partake when life is issuing out of our own beings. Such as when a woman is in her cycle or after child bearing and there is a discharge of blood/life.

This conclusion is derived from Jesus and the woman who had an issue of blood. He did not refuse her, but He also felt virture leave His body when she touched His robe. However, the difference here, is that she did so to stop the issue, as it was not natural to the woman, but rather an illness. So in essence, Jesus stopped the life/blood leaving her body with His eternal life and by His forgiveness and her faith she was healed.

Such a case is not addressed in the law. But in the Person of Christ, His life and works, we can surmise by reason and the Spirit, that this is a worthy understanding, which is profitable to us both physically and spiritually.

dan
Apr 29th 2009, 02:20 PM
So as a Gentile I can steal, lie and cheat on my wife? I don't see those commandments above. :rolleyes:

...I am to suppose that you would base your entire belief on one verse of scripture?:lol:

keck553
Apr 29th 2009, 03:11 PM
The ancient church isn't visible to the whole world. And yet it exists in the visible world. I would advise you to seek out the ancient church, as it has all the answers your looking for. I am only one person of the ancient faith, so I do not hold all the answers as the Apostolic church does. So while I can answer some questions to the best of my ability, I do not hold the fullness of truth as the church does.

Side note; I did ask about a subject we touched on in one of these threads on the clean unclean and blood subject. If you recall I said that my church has different opinions about a woman taking communion when she is in her cycle and or after child bearing.

The issue of the subject is deliberated in the reverance of holy communion. The body and blood of our Lord is most holy in my church. And because the life is in the blood, when one partakes of this holy mystery (as it is known in my church) His life is imparted into theirs (which means literally also, as afterward it is also literally surging within ones blood). It is out of reverance that, to that which is holy, that we do not partake when life is issuing out of our own beings. Such as when a woman is in her cycle or after child bearing and there is a discharge of blood/life.

This conclusion is derived from Jesus and the woman who had an issue of blood. He did not refuse her, but He also felt virture leave His body when she touched His robe. However, the difference here, is that she did so to stop the issue, as it was not natural to the woman, but rather an illness. So in essence, Jesus stopped the life/blood leaving her body with His eternal life and by His forgiveness and her faith she was healed.

Such a case is not addressed in the law. But in the Person of Christ, His life and works, we can surmise by reason and the Spirit, that this is a worthy understanding, which is profitable to us both physically and spiritually.

That's beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

keck553
Apr 29th 2009, 03:12 PM
...I am to suppose that you would base your entire belief on one verse of scripture?:lol:

LOL. Some believe the baby steps laid out in the Jerusalem council is the entirety of their commitment to God.

Firstfruits
Apr 29th 2009, 03:29 PM
The church? What do you mean? Which church? There are 30,000 sects. Who's right? Which one? Show me the Scripture that supports such an idea.

I believe it is the Church that Christ has built.

Mt 16:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

How therefore are we made perfect?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
Apr 29th 2009, 03:48 PM
Yeah, but it's not all in one of the sects, ya know? His children are everywhere.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77