PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Instruction In Righteousness!!!!!!



Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 08:55 AM
With the understanding that the righteousness of the law is not the righteousness of God, and that the law is not of faith, are we to understand that the instruction in righteousness in the following scripture is not that of the law?

Also we know as it is written that the law made nothing perfect yet if we follow the instruction of righteousness we are made perfect, again this cannot be the works of the law.

So what therefore is the righteousness of God that we should follow that will make us perfect?

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Extra references:
Gal 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

When replying can you please supply the scriptures used regarding your answers? Thanks.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Sojourner
Apr 30th 2009, 11:47 AM
Also we know as it is written that the law made nothing perfect yet if we follow the instruction of righteousness we are made perfect, again this cannot be the works of the law.For clarity: "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Heb. 7:19

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 11:55 AM
For clarity: "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Heb. 7:19

Thanks Sojourner,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 12:56 PM
With the understanding that the righteousness of the law is not the righteousness of God, and that the law is not of faith, are we to understand that the instruction in righteousness in the following scripture is not that of the law?

Also we know as it is written that the law made nothing perfect yet if we follow the instruction of righteousness we are made perfect, again this cannot be the works of the law.

So what therefore is the righteousness of God that we should follow that will make us perfect?

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Extra references:
Gal 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

When replying can you please supply the scriptures used regarding your answers? Thanks.

God bless you!

Firstfruits


What you call 'law' is from the Hebrew word that is properly translated as 'Instruction, teaching.' So you tell me, is the Instruction of YHWH instruction in rigtheousness? Do we make void the law through faith? Do we take pride in our carnal mind which cannot be subject to the law (instruction) of YHWH?

Slug1
Apr 30th 2009, 01:07 PM
What you call 'law' is from the Hebrew word that is properly translated as 'Instruction, teaching.' So you tell me, is the Instruction of YHWH instruction in rigtheousness? Do we make void the law through faith? Do we take pride in our carnal mind which cannot be subject to the law (instruction) of YHWH?Ya know... in the NT it tells us all that the Old Covenant is obsolete and was to be a tutor for the Jewish people until Jesus could be born and issue in the New Covenant... IOW's replace the old with the new. I posted all the scripture refs in that other thread but was ignored.

Carnal mind?... you toss that word at everyone like it was candy. If reading what the Lord says to us all in the NT is carnal... then please use that term all you want but the way you use it isn't meant to be edifying...

God is the one who spoke through all those who penned the NT so as we follow what is said... we're carnal?... I don't think so.

Gal 3:

Purpose of the Law


19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

So why would anyone "choose" to remain under a tutorship and not move forward instead... with Jesus?

Jesus said through an apostle... "//we are no longer under a tutor"

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 01:34 PM
What you call 'law' is from the Hebrew word that is properly translated as 'Instruction, teaching.' So you tell me, is the Instruction of YHWH instruction in rigtheousness? Do we make void the law through faith? Do we take pride in our carnal mind which cannot be subject to the law (instruction) of YHWH?

Can you please provide the scriptures regarding your question?

Also can you note that the main OP is concerning the following scripture.

Thanks,

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Firstfruits

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 03:06 PM
Carnal mind?... you toss that word at everyone like it was candy. If reading what the Lord says to us all in the NT is carnal... then please use that term all you want but the way you use it isn't meant to be edifying...


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.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The problem with the law, was not the law, but the sinful nature.

Why would a person fight so hard to be free from the Instruction?

Side note: the law was never given to Judah alone, but the whole house of Israel.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 03:12 PM
The problem with the law, was not the law, but the sinful nature.

And the purpose of the law was to show the sinful nature . . .

So, now that the sinful nature has not only been recognized but taken away by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ . . . what's the need for law?

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 03:14 PM
By the way . . .

Let's make this discussion edifying without any sort of jabs at others or what they believe.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 03:23 PM
So why would anyone "choose" to remain under a tutorship and not move forward instead... with Jesus?



I have abandoned linear thinking. Everything is cyclical (biblically). There is a chance that Messiah can take us to the ancient path, the commandment we heard from the beginning.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 03:27 PM
And the purpose of the law was to show the sinful nature . . .

So, now that the sinful nature has not only been recognized but taken away by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ . . . what's the need for law?


I am not sure, but I cant help to feel that there does remain a need for love, delight, and rest as defined by the law. If the law showed our sinful nature (such as not wanting a day of rest), and the sinful nature has been put to death, what fear would there be in the Instruction of YHWH? If our sinful nature could not be subject to the law, should we not be subject now that our sinful nature is dead?

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 03:31 PM
I am not sure, but I cant help to feel that there does remain a need for love, delight, and rest as defined by the law. If the law showed our sinful nature (such as not wanting a day of rest), and the sinful nature has been put to death, what fear would there be in the Instruction of YHWH? If our sinful nature could not be subject to the law, should we not be subject now that our sinful nature is dead?

Here's the thing, though. Let's just take the speed limit laws, for example. The speed limit law is not there for instruction. The speed limit law is there to say, "Do this or else!"

A born again believer should have the power to walk in love and enter His rest without the need of, "Do this or else!"

See what I'm saying? The law wasn't JUST about instruction. The law was about directing a bunch of hard-hearted folks who loved sin. Christians shouldn't have that problem.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 03:41 PM
Here's the thing, though. Let's just take the speed limit laws, for example. The speed limit law is not there for instruction. The speed limit law is there to say, "Do this or else!"

A born again believer should have the power to walk in love and enter His rest without the need of, "Do this or else!"

See what I'm saying? The law wasn't JUST about instruction. The law was about directing a bunch of hard-hearted folks who loved sin. Christians shouldn't have that problem.


Yes, but without the speed limit laws the chance of accidents and danger increases.

You are right, we should not have a problem with sin (transgression of the law). The law is instruction in righteousness, not the receiving of righteousness.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 03:51 PM
The author of the Book of Hebrews was wrote by a Hellenized Jew, probably a disiple of Paul to Torah observant Hellinized Jews referred to as 'Hebrews'. They were believers in Jesus as the long awaited Messiah. The author of Hebrews used a well known rabbinic argument "Qal Va Homer" or 'light to heavy' or 'how much more'. This is a very common rabbinic argument. One wonders what 1st century Bible study referenced as commentary. The writer of Hebrews gives us a hint when he speaks of angels ministering Torah at Sinai (there are some other simular references in the Gospels and writings). The source of this angelic presence during the giving of the Torah at Pentacost is not found in Torah itselfl; it is found in shemot (exodus) rabbah; basically a commentary. Futher references to angels and Torah in the Book of Hebrews also point to other midrashim from all five Books.

The point being that the entire framework and context of the Book of Hebrews is not framed as a antithesis of "old vs. new", but as a light to heavy, or how much more. If not read in the proper perspective, the question is not correctly answered. The light to heavy argument (and this is not a speculation, it is a well established known rabbinic argument).

Read in the correct context (light to heavy) some of the statements that come out of the 'old replaces new' false argument become ridiculous.

If Torah was obsolete in the perspective of the writer, then how could he use a 'how much more' arguement? He basically would be saying "if Torah is obsolete, then how much more is Messiah?" which is non-sensical and profane. No, if Torah is what God calls good and holy, then how much better is Yeshua/Jesus, His works, and His midrashim Good and Holy? Yeshua/Jesus taught the intent of Torah, and His indwelt Spirit writes it's precepts on our hearts as we allow by our own free will and willingness to submit.

Hebrews is not an 'old' / 'new' argument. Hebrews is a 'how much more' arguement. Read in that perspective, it's much clearer what the writer intends.

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 04:11 PM
Let us not forget the main question that is being asked;

So what therefore is the righteousness of God that we should follow that will make us perfect?

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The following are just extras to help explain my question;

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 04:32 PM
FF, what Scripture is Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy?

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 04:39 PM
Yes, but without the speed limit laws the chance of accidents and danger increases.

Only because of those who are going to break them. The law is there to punish those who choose not to obey instruction. If the government could just say, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area" and everyone obeyed then there would be no need for a law saying, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area or you will get a ticket and pay a penalty."

Do you see the difference? This is why the Word says that the law is not for the righteous but for the sinner.

Slug1
Apr 30th 2009, 04:45 PM
Only because of those who are going to break them. The law is there to punish those who choose not to obey instruction. If the government could just say, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area" and everyone obeyed then there would be no need for a law saying, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area or you will get a ticket and pay a penalty."

Do you see the difference? This is why the Word says that the law is not for the righteous but for the sinner.:amen:

All they have to do is serve God, through Jesus Christ in this New Covenant.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 05:13 PM
And how much more we should love and obey the Word become flesh than the Word written in stone.

Same word, greater authority.

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 05:28 PM
FF, what Scripture is Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy?

I have noted your question however the scriptures given are why the question is being asked, which is this, what is the righteousness of God if it is not of the law?

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The following are just extras to help explain my question;

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

How are we to live if the righteousness of the law is not the righteousness of God.

What is the righteousness of God?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 05:33 PM
And how much more we should love and obey the Word become flesh than the Word written in stone.

Same word, greater authority.

Same word, same authority but not the same righteousness.

Why is the righteousness of the law not the same as the righteousness of God?

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 06:12 PM
Same word, same authority but not the same righteousness.

Why is the righteousness of the law not the same as the righteousness of God?

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

So God has two standards of rightouesness? Where do you get that idea? God is not double-minded. We usually are though.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 06:45 PM
Same word, same authority but not the same righteousness.

Why is the righteousness of the law not the same as the righteousness of God?

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

On edit, I'll try to give an explanation. Paul is making a point here. But first we need context, which your one verse does not establish.

Rom 9:30-32
(30) So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in trusting!
(31) However, Isra'el, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness, did not reach what the Torah offers.
(32) Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in trusting but as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled over the stone that makes people stumble.

Paul is showing that God has granted righteousness to the Gentiles, but in no way do they replace Israel. What, you say? The context of these verses is established by the entire letter Paul wrote. Paul actually repeats this question in chapter 11, where he does provide the answer.

In no way does Paul say pursueing Torah on the basis of faith in Yeshua/Jesus has been done away with.

Rom 3:31
(31) Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah.

What trusting? Trust in Yeshua/Jesus! I don't think it could be written any plainer than that. Where in Rom 3:31 does Paul say trusting in Yeshua abolishes Torah?

Torah observance is NOT what Paul is condemning here. However -

Rom 9:33
(33) As the Tanakh puts it, "Look, I am laying in Tziyon a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will trip them up. But he who rests his trust on it will not be humiliated."

to pursue Torah apart from trust (i.e. to earn favor) is to 'stumble over the stone'.

Paul is saying much of Israel has stumbled over the Torah and Messiah. These are interlinked as Torah and Messiah are 'one' and that 'one' is the plan of God, expressed in Torah and enacted and established by Messiah. Isreal did not arrive at the goal, which is Yeshua:

Rom 10:4
(4) For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:02 PM
Let us not forget the main question that is being asked;

So what therefore is the righteousness of God that we should follow that will make us perfect?

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The following are just extras to help explain my question;

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Our rightesouness is in Messiah alone. We, being perfected, our given the law to live as already perfected people. The law does not make righteous, it is the guidleline for righteousness. The two scriptures do not contradict one another, as you suggest, but instead it affirms we are not made righteous by Scripture, yet it is our guidline as a redeemed people.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 07:05 PM
Rom 3:31
(31) Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah.

What trusting? Trust in Yeshua/Jesus! I don't think it could be written any plainer than that. Where in Rom 3:31 does Paul say trusting in Yeshua abolishes Torah?

Torah observance is NOT what Paul is condemning here.

I don't see Paul saying anything about Torah observance. I see Paul declaring that the law points to Jesus, and our faith in Him confirms this shadow. He is the fulfillment . . .

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 07:05 PM
On edit, I'll try to give an explanation. Paul is making a point here. But first we need context, which your one verse does not establish.

Rom 9:30-32
(30) So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in trusting!
(31) However, Isra'el, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness, did not reach what the Torah offers.
(32) Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in trusting but as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled over the stone that makes people stumble.

Paul is showing that God has granted righteousness to the Gentiles, but in no way do they replace Israel. What, you say? The context of these verses is established by the entire letter Paul wrote. Paul actually repeats this question in chapter 11, where he does provide the answer.

In no way does Paul say pursueing Torah on the basis of faith in Yeshua/Jesus has been done away with.

Rom 3:31
(31) Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah.

What trusting? Trust in Yeshua/Jesus! I don't think it could be written any plainer than that. Where in Rom 3:31 does Paul say trusting in Yeshua abolishes Torah?

Torah observance is NOT what Paul is condemning here. However -

Rom 9:33
(33) As the Tanakh puts it, "Look, I am laying in Tziyon a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will trip them up. But he who rests his trust on it will not be humiliated."

to pursue Torah apart from trust (i.e. to earn favor) is to 'stumble over the stone'.

Paul is saying much of Israel has stumbled over the Torah and Messiah. These are interlinked as Torah and Messiah are 'one' and that 'one' is the plan of God, expressed in Torah and enacted and established by Messiah. Isreal did not arrive at the goal, which is Yeshua:

Rom 10:4
(4) For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.




Hey, Keck...Serious question. What version are you quoting and is it available online?

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:08 PM
Only because of those who are going to break them. The law is there to punish those who choose not to obey instruction. If the government could just say, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area" and everyone obeyed then there would be no need for a law saying, "Nobody drive faster than 55 in this area or you will get a ticket and pay a penalty."

Do you see the difference? This is why the Word says that the law is not for the righteous but for the sinner.


Yes, your point is crystal clear. The lawless are given the command to know the penalty for breaking the law, while those who do not break the law follow the law for safety, not because they will be condemned for doing otherwise but because it is in their nature. You have stated it better than I could have.

No wonder the CARNAL mind cannot be subject to the law of YHWH.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:11 PM
Hey, Keck...Serious question. What version are you quoting and is it available online?


Only if you know the secret handshake.


I would guess it is the 'Complete Jewish Bible'.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 07:13 PM
Yes, your point is crystal clear. The lawless are given the command to know the penalty for breaking the law, while those who do not break the law follow the law for safety, not because they will be condemned for doing otherwise but because it is in their nature. You have stated it better than I could have.

No wonder the CARNAL mind cannot be subject to the law of YHWH.

So then you agree that Christians should not need law, but we should only listen to His voice and be led of His Spirit . . . yes?

After all, His sheep hear His voice. So, we do not need statutes or regulations in order to heed Him. Our love for Him and our love for our neighbor by the power of His Spirit leads us in the way of righteousness.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 07:14 PM
I don't see Paul saying anything about Torah observance. I see Paul declaring that the law points to Jesus, and our faith in Him confirms this shadow. He is the fulfillment . . .

[/size][/size]

That's a good observation, Now you know Paul assumed Torah observance was the norm and not 'abolished', or Paul would have specifically said so.

Instead he said this:

Rom 3:31
(31) Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah.

Does that read like an abolishment to you?

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:16 PM
So then you agree that Christians should not need law, but we should only listen to His voice and be led of His Spirit . . . yes?

After all, His sheep hear His voice. So, we do not need statutes or regulations in order to heed Him. Our love for Him and our love for our neighbor by the power of His Spirit leads us in the way of righteousness.


Yes, I will agree in concept. The law defines the law mandated commands on loving god and loving our neighbor. So yes, His Spirit does indeed affirm His law as a matter of love, not bondage.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 07:18 PM
That's a good observation, Now you know Paul assumed Torah observance was the norm and not 'abolished', or Paul would have specifically said so.

Instead he said this:

Rom 3:31
(31) Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we confirm Torah.

Does that read like an abolishment to you?

Torah observance was the norm for a Jew, which is why Paul is making the destinction in the verse prior between the Jew who is circumsized according to the law and the gentile who is not . . . both being justified by faith because the law is simply a shadow of things to come. The fulfillment is in Christ.

There's no need to "abolish" the law. It's been fulfilled in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The law was simply a pointer . . .

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 07:22 PM
Yes, I will agree in concept. The law defines the law mandated commands on loving god and loving our neighbor. So yes, His Spirit does indeed affirm His law as a matter of love, not bondage.


His Spirit affirms something in us that we do not need?

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:26 PM
His Spirit affirms something in us that we do not need?

I am confused, I thought you said we should love God and our neighbor. It is impossible to do this without doing as the law states. Are you suggesting that we can love our neighbor as long as we are not aware what we are doing is in the law or because of the law?

It is okay to care for the widow and fatherless as long as we do not do it because the law says to?

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 07:38 PM
I am confused, I thought you said we should love God and our neighbor. It is impossible to do this without doing as the law states. Are you suggesting that we can love our neighbor as long as we are not aware what we are doing is in the law or because of the law?

It is okay to care for the widow and fatherless as long as we do not do it because the law says to?

Obedience to the law has nothing to do with defining how we love our neighbor. Skubalon.

The law said not to murder, Jesus says not to hate.
The law said not to commit adultery, Jesus says not to lust.
The law said to tithe, Jesus says to give.

The law, if that is the standard, is a pitifully poor second tier definition of life in Jesus.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 07:44 PM
Obedience to the law has nothing to do with defining how we love our neighbor. Skubalon.

The law said not to murder, Jesus says not to hate.
The law said not to commit adultery, Jesus says not to lust.
The law said to tithe, Jesus says to give.

The law, if that is the standard, is a pitifully poor second tier definition of life in Jesus.


You mean Messiah magnified the law? I will agree with that. Though it did seem a good definition for Jacob, John and Peter. Good thing we are smarter than they. They did not have the NT so we cannot fault them for their second tier definitions, I spose.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 07:51 PM
I am confused, I thought you said we should love God and our neighbor. It is impossible to do this without doing as the law states. Are you suggesting that we can love our neighbor as long as we are not aware what we are doing is in the law or because of the law?

It is okay to care for the widow and fatherless as long as we do not do it because the law says to?

Which of the following shows our love for the Lord?

Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

or . . .

2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 08:02 PM
You mean Messiah magnified the law? I will agree with that. Though it did seem a good definition for Jacob, John and Peter. Good thing we are smarter than they. They did not have the NT so we cannot fault them for their second tier definitions, I spose.

No, Jesus did not magnify the law. He fulfilled it. Then wrote a new Law with his own blood.

We are not smarter than Jacob, John or Peter. We have the advantage or more revelation, and are accordingly held to a higher standard.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 08:47 PM
Which of the following shows our love for the Lord?

Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

or . . .

2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

We have to choose between God's word and God's word now? What kind of wacky world is this?

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 08:49 PM
No, Jesus did not magnify the law. He fulfilled it. Then wrote a new Law with his own blood.

We are not smarter than Jacob, John or Peter. We have the advantage or more revelation, and are accordingly held to a higher standard.

------- confusion alarm claxton ringing loudly----------

new law? Does that mean He didn't Follow the will of the Father (usurped the Father's commands)? Let's see that in Scripture.

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 08:50 PM
We have to choose between God's word and God's word now? What kind of wacky world is this?

No, but we do have to read God's word in light of His continuing progressive revelation to us.

Otherwise, we're back to sacrificing bulls and goats and little wooly lambs, but we don't do that part any more. Our understanding of acceptable sacrifice has changed as God has revealed further truth through Jesus.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 08:57 PM
No, but we do have to read God's word in light of His continuing progressive revelation to us.

The confusion alarm was ringing simple because you said for instance that Jesus writes a "new law" I think you used an example "don't hate" usurps "do not murder". Now.....if "do not murder" is an obsolete Torah command, and has been replaced witih 'do not hate', what if I murdered someone, oh let's say because someone paid me a million bucks. I did not hate the victim, and since I transgressed an 'obsolete Torah command' I am still righteous because I obeyed Jesus, who 'wrote new laws on my heart'?


Otherwise, we're back to sacrificing bulls and goats and little wooly lambs, but we don't do that part any more. Our understanding of acceptable sacrifice has changed as God has revealed further truth through Jesus.

You could rebuild the temple, find some Levites and do that, but you have a better sacrifice and a better High Priest. Note the system is not obsolete, just less stressful to your son when you have to kill is pet lamb for your sins.

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 09:04 PM
The confusion alarm was ringing simple because you said for instance that Jesus writes a "new law" I think you used an example "don't hate" usurps "do not murder". Now.....if "do not murder" is an obsolete Torah command, and has been replaced witih 'do not hate', what if I murdered someone, oh let's say because someone paid me a million bucks. I did not hate the victim, and since I transgressed an 'obsolete Torah command' I am still righteous because I obeyed Jesus, who 'wrote new laws on my heart'?



You could rebuild the temple, find some Levites and do that, but you have a better sacrifice and a better High Priest. Note the system is not obsolete, just less stressful to your son when you have to kill is pet lamb for your sins.

No,no, NO! You couldn't rebuild the temple and find levites and please God...He has already provided the final and perfect Lamb. The system is completely and utterly obsolete. Do you honestly believe that God, today, would be pleased with a lamb sacrificed by a Levite in a rebuilt Temple???? Please tell me you don't really believe that. Please.

And your illustration of "murder for hire is OK as long as I don't hate" is nuts and you know it! The standard of love is higher, not lesser.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 09:11 PM
Hey, Keck...Serious question. What version are you quoting and is it available online?

I will PM you

jjjjj

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 09:18 PM
Torah observance was the norm for a Jew, which is why Paul is making the destinction in the verse prior between the Jew who is circumsized according to the law and the gentile who is not . . . both being justified by faith because the law is simply a shadow of things to come. The fulfillment is in Christ.

There's no need to "abolish" the law. It's be fulfilled in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The law was simply a pointer . . .

Yet you refer to 'the law' when you need an answer. Me too.

Firstfruits
Apr 30th 2009, 09:29 PM
So God has two standards of rightouesness? Where do you get that idea? God is not double-minded. We usually are though.

Are you saying that this is my idea?

Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Does this mean that one is no longer valid?

What therefore is the difference between the two?

Firstfruits

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 09:34 PM
We have to choose between God's word and God's word now? What kind of wacky world is this?

This is not an answer to the question.

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 09:35 PM
Yet you refer to 'the law' when you need an answer. Me too.

I'm not following you. Can you clarify?

VerticalReality
Apr 30th 2009, 09:47 PM
Again, here's the question . . .

Which of the following shows our love for the Lord?

Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

or . . .

2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

Also keep this Scripture in mind . . .

Hebrews 10:1
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

Emanate
Apr 30th 2009, 09:58 PM
Which of the following shows our love for the Lord?

Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

or . . .

2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?


all of the above.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 10:45 PM
And your illustration of "murder for hire is OK as long as I don't hate" is nuts and you know it! The standard of love is higher, not lesser.

I agree it's nuts but no nuttier than I don't follow the law but I do follow the law but just won't admit I follow the law because if I did admit I followed the law then it would contradict all the man made teachings I've been indocrinated in for all my church life; that through some spiritual deployment the law is on my heart, but only the laws that my church decided that should be on my heart. so I've decided to secretly follow the law but publically say I don't follow the law because I'm afraid if my peers.

God does write His laws on our hearts. But only what we are willing to receive. God doesn't force anyone's choices.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 10:46 PM
This is not an answer to the question.

I refuse to divide God into two houses. Sorry.

keck553
Apr 30th 2009, 10:52 PM
I'm not following you. Can you clarify?

Let's say no one ever told you that you should not go to a Gypsy for your fortune. Where would you go to find what God says about it? And don't say the Holy Spirit would tell you; I won't buy it. I know many a mormon who will claim the Holy Spirit will convict them about wine, but in truth it's their relationship with man made doctrine and tradtitions that will convict them. That's why it is SO IMPORTANT to divide God's standards from those of men. And the ONLY place to find those standards is Torah and Yeshua's teachings on Torah.

The Holy Spirit or your own human understanding convicts you of what you know by the Word of God or what someone may have told you is sin. The only way to know the difference is to correctly divide the Holy from the common.

BHS
Apr 30th 2009, 11:43 PM
From the OP --

These assumptions are incorrect --


are we to understand that the instruction in righteousness in the following scripture is not that of the law?

Also we know as it is written that the law made nothing perfect yet if we follow the instruction of righteousness we are made perfect, again this cannot be the works of the law.



Let me paraphrase this using the Greek original language understanding –

Every Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in right living, so that God-fearing men may be adequately prepared for every good deed.

Does this include the Torah? – yes, it does. Does it refer to the entire Tanach ("OT")? – yes, it does.

The instruction in righteousness is instruction in righteous living.

The Greek word "artios" translated "perfect" means "complete" or "fitted" and is better translated "adequate".

It serves no purpose to twist or take the scripture out of context.

BHS

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 12:40 AM
all of the above.

So, what about following the passage in Leviticus 19 shows our love for the Lord, and why do you think this law commanded such a thing?

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 12:43 AM
I refuse to divide God into two houses. Sorry.

Then the question is not for you. If you do not want to answer it would be beneficial for the discussion if you just didn't post.

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 12:44 AM
Let's say no one ever told you that you should not go to a Gypsy for your fortune. Where would you go to find what God says about it? And don't say the Holy Spirit would tell you; I won't buy it. I know many a mormon who will claim the Holy Spirit will convict them about wine, but in truth it's their relationship with man made doctrine and tradtitions that will convict them. That's why it is SO IMPORTANT to divide God's standards from those of men. And the ONLY place to find those standards is Torah and Yeshua's teachings on Torah.

The Holy Spirit or your own human understanding convicts you of what you know by the Word of God or what someone may have told you is sin. The only way to know the difference is to correctly divide the Holy from the common.

You're saying that you need a law to demand you not to practice or take part in divination? Why do you need such a thing?

Alaska
May 1st 2009, 01:09 AM
Deut. 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

You guys zealous for Torah, I'd like to know where polygamy is prohibited for the common man.
Since the above verses touch on a side point relating to polygamy and yet does not forbid it, what scriptural basis is there for disallowing it in Christianity? If it has been forbidden by secular worldly civil law but not by God, then Christianity needs to proclaim that as one of the errors of civil law, like the error of trying to prohibit all alcohol in the early 1900's.

Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob and others we recognize as worthy, had more than one wife.

Please communicate.

Firstfruits
May 1st 2009, 08:01 AM
I do not believe that the following has been addressed;

Originally Posted by keck553 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2060194#post2060194)
So God has two standards of rightouesness? Where do you get that idea? God is not double-minded. We usually are though.

Are you saying that this is my idea?
Rom 9:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Does this mean that one is no longer valid?

What therefore is the difference between the two?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
May 1st 2009, 04:03 PM
Deut. 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

You guys zealous for Torah, I'd like to know where polygamy is prohibited for the common man.
Since the above verses touch on a side point relating to polygamy and yet does not forbid it, what scriptural basis is there for disallowing it in Christianity? If it has been forbidden by secular worldly civil law but not by God, then Christianity needs to proclaim that as one of the errors of civil law, like the error of trying to prohibit all alcohol in the early 1900's.

Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob and others we recognize as worthy, had more than one wife.

Please communicate.

I don't have a hard heart.

Consider that your answer.

keck553
May 1st 2009, 04:04 PM
You're saying that you need a law to demand you not to practice or take part in divination? Why do you need such a thing?

I'm saying ALL Morality comes from God. And no, if someone didn't tell you someone reading your palm was divination, you wouldn't know any better. If we want to serve the Master, we need to try to be like the Master, love what He loves, have in our hearts what is in His heart. That's what a disciple does.

keck553
May 1st 2009, 04:08 PM
Then the question is not for you. If you do not want to answer it would be beneficial for the discussion if you just didn't post.

This discussion (or any discussion for that matter) is fine until a question comes up that positions God vs. God.

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 04:33 PM
I'm saying ALL Morality comes from God. And no, if someone didn't tell you someone reading your palm was divination, you wouldn't know any better. If we want to serve the Master, we need to try to be like the Master, love what He loves, have in our hearts what is in His heart. That's what a disciple does.

You are still not addressing the issues being presented. It was never stated that we do not need the Word of God to inform us what is good for us or what is bad for us. What is being stated is that a Christian should not need a law enforcing what is good and what is bad.

It seems what is being lost here is the true intention of the law.

Can you answer why the law in Leviticus 19:19 was needed? What was the purpose of it? I'm assuming you observe this law, yes?

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 04:36 PM
This discussion (or any discussion for that matter) is fine until a question comes up that positions God vs. God.

If you understood where I was coming from you would understand that the question is not positioning God vs. God. Emanate didn't have a problem answering the question (albeit an answer that I disagree with), so I don't think there is much a problem with it.

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 07:10 PM
Deut. 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

You guys zealous for Torah, I'd like to know where polygamy is prohibited for the common man.
Since the above verses touch on a side point relating to polygamy and yet does not forbid it, what scriptural basis is there for disallowing it in Christianity? If it has been forbidden by secular worldly civil law but not by God, then Christianity needs to proclaim that as one of the errors of civil law, like the error of trying to prohibit all alcohol in the early 1900's.

Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob and others we recognize as worthy, had more than one wife.

Please communicate.


This is an odd line of questioning. The NT does not disallow polygamy (except for certain leaders). If Christianity disallows it then it is not based biblically. If you feel so strongly about having more than one wife, you are more of a man than I. I will say, just because something is prohibited, it does not mean it is commanded. Why would we cite issue with our Civil Law that forbids polygamy if polygamy were never commanded?

http://www.fallibleblogma.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/straw-man.jpg

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 07:26 PM
So, what about following the passage in Leviticus 19 shows our love for the Lord, and why do you think this law commanded such a thing?

In order to pattern a life after a spiritual principle that Paul revealed in 2 Corinthians 6. Paul revealed many mysteries regarding the law and Messiah.

Livestock breeding with another kind is unnatural (and unreproducible which violates the order of creation).
Mixed seed in a field is chaos at harvest time (wheat and tares).
Mixed materials in clothing restricts 'breathability' to the material, thus trapping toxins in the body (making for less than stellar health).


2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

In the command in the law, we find an explanation of what Paul was saying. Or better yet, possibly what Paul had in mind when he wrote it. Paul had a keen understanding of many mysteries.

RabbiKnife
May 1st 2009, 07:28 PM
Paul had a keen understanding of many mysteries.

Like what a "fulfilled" covenant was!!!

:D:D:D

(Come on, it was too good to pass up! :) )

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 07:32 PM
Like what a "fulfilled" covenant was!!!

:D:D:D

(Come on, it was too good to pass up! :) )

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


Good one.

Perhaps he knew that when he told us to "fulfill" it also.

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 07:43 PM
In order to pattern a life after a spiritual principle that Paul revealed in 2 Corinthians 6. Paul revealed many mysteries regarding the law and Messiah.

Livestock breeding with another kind is unnatural (and unreproducible which violates the order of creation).
Mixed seed in a field is chaos at harvest time (wheat and tares).
Mixed materials in clothing restricts 'breathability' to the material, thus trapping toxins in the body (making for less than stellar health).


2 Corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

In the command in the law, we find an explanation of what Paul was saying. Or better yet, possibly what Paul had in mind when he wrote it. Paul had a keen understanding of many mysteries.

Fantastic! So you see the shadow . . .

Hebrews 8:4-6
For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

What's the purpose of offering a sacrifice which only serves as a copy and shadow of the revealed heavenly things? The deeper spiritual truth lies in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15. It's the equivalent of continuing to offer animal sacrifices when Jesus has already given the one and only acceptable sacrifice by His own blood.

Colossians 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Leviticus 19:19 simply served as a shadow just as festivals, sabbaths, etc. Why remain in the shadow when the substance is of Christ who has brought the deeper revelation that the shadows were pointing to?

Hebrews 10:1-4
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Why not serve the true image rather than the shadow?

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 08:11 PM
Why not serve the true image rather than the shadow?


I am confused, did I say that I 'served' the law?

The verses in Hebrew you are quoting are referring the the levitical priesthood, if context has anything to do with scripture. I serve Messiah, not a levite.

Alaska
May 1st 2009, 08:38 PM
The NT does not disallow polygamy (except for certain leaders). If Christianity disallows it then it is not based biblically.


This is a declaration that all Christian churches that use Gen. 2 and Mark 10 etc to declare polygamy not permitted by the NT are in error.
This places such as yourself in the same category of the old Mormons who did not understand the changes made by the NT and hence allowed Polygamy, which the NT calls adultery. Any woman besides the One first lawfully married and who is still alive is adultery.
This places you guys on par with old Mormons and loose Christianity that endorses adultery. The position you hold is from a serious cult mentality.
This thread should be moved to World Religions.

kenramse
May 1st 2009, 09:18 PM
Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.


And I was just about ready to go out on this cool spring day and plant a few tomatoes, onions, and some corn, all in the same little garden. Thought about some potatoes but need to go and get some with some eyes on them to have a start. Guess I better leave my cardigan hanging in the closet and wear a nylon jacket with my jeans while I work out in the field. Wouldn't want to have to go and buy me a lamb or two to get sacrificed for all of this law breaking. Wait...who would do that for me and where? No temples around here anywhere...

Having made that rediculous statement I have to say that I have visited many threads on this forum, finding the same people making the same tired argument about the continance of the Torah, or the law...Like the Pharisees they are guilty of at least one judgement in Mathew 23. To the Torah, Christians owe no fealty. To Christ we owe all that we are.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 09:19 PM
I am confused, did I say that I 'served' the law?

The verses in Hebrew you are quoting are referring the the levitical priesthood, if context has anything to do with scripture. I serve Messiah, not a levite.

Okay then . . .

Why not walk in the truth of the revealed heavenly things rather than the shadows that were only given to point us to those deeper truths?

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 09:52 PM
Okay then . . .

Why not walk in the truth of the revealed heavenly things rather than the shadows that were only given to point us to those deeper truths?

You can judge me all you like as if you know what my walk is like. You might be shocked to discover not all deeper truths have been revealed. As for me and my house, we will not forsake the delight of Torah.

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 09:54 PM
This is a declaration that all Christian churches that use Gen. 2 and Mark 10 etc to declare polygamy not permitted by the NT are in error.
This places such as yourself in the same category of the old Mormons who did not understand the changes made by the NT and hence allowed Polygamy, which the NT calls adultery. Any woman besides the One first lawfully married and who is still alive is adultery.
This places you guys on par with old Mormons and loose Christianity that endorses adultery. The position you hold is from a serious cult mentality.
This thread should be moved to World Religions.


If you can give me a scripture that prohibits polygamy to all, I will shine your shoes.

Emanate
May 1st 2009, 09:57 PM
Leviticus 19:19
‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.


And I was just about ready to go out on this cool spring day and plant a few tomatoes, onions, and some corn, all in the same little garden. Thought about some potatoes but need to go and get some with some eyes on them to have a start. Guess I better leave my cardigan hanging in the closet and wear a nylon jacket with my jeans while I work out in the field. Wouldn't want to have to go and buy me a lamb or two to get sacrificed for all of this law breaking. Wait...who would do that for me and where? No temples around here anywhere...

Having made that rediculous statement


Only ridiculous because your post shows that you are not familiar with Torah, and much less with Pharisaism or the issues surrounding the NT. There is no sacrifice for sins involving lambs within Torah.

VerticalReality
May 1st 2009, 10:07 PM
You can judge me all you like as if you know what my walk is like. You might be shocked to discover not all deeper truths have been revealed. As for me and my house, we will not forsake the delight of Torah.

I was not placing judgment. I was asking you a question. That's what this forum is all about. It's about conversing back and forth. What deeper truths have not been made available? Additionally, even if there are deeper truths that have not been made available does that then mean we should remain in the shadows of those truths that have? For example, should I remain in the shadows of offering animal sacrifices when the Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrifice has brought to fulfillment what those animal sacrifices were trying to show? The answer is no. Instead of offering animal sacrifices I will trust in the truth revealed in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Likewise, instead of worrying about what sort of clothing I'm wearing as if such physical things is what pleases our Lord, I will abide in the truth revealed and not yoke myself with unbelievers but instead delight in the Lord and surround myself with His people.

You and your house are free to do whatever it is you feel you would like to do. However, the issue arises when what you do is brought to others as if it is something they should do as well. You, though, are free to worship the Lord however you choose.

Walstib
May 1st 2009, 10:19 PM
Only ridiculous because your post shows that you are not familiar with Torah, and much less with Pharisaism or the issues surrounding the NT. There is no sacrifice for sins involving lambs within Torah.

Hi Emanate,

I don't want to misunderstand you here. Could you please take the time to relate your understanding of how the lamb in this passage is not a sacrifice for sin? Sorry if I may have worded that out of your context.

Peace,
Joe


'But if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it, a female without defect. 'He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they slay the burnt offering. 'The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. 'Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar, on the offerings by fire to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven. (Lev 4:32-35 NASB)

kenramse
May 1st 2009, 10:53 PM
Only ridiculous because your post shows that you are not familiar with Torah, and much less with Pharisaism or the issues surrounding the NT. There is no sacrifice for sins involving lambs within Torah.

Is that so... Isn't Leviticus 4:32-35 still in the Torah?

Lev 4:32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
Lev 4:33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
Lev 4:34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:
Lev 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.


As to my knowledge (or lack thereof, according to you) of Pharasees...one of the two primary sects of Judaism (the Sadducees were the other one) at the time of the second Temple and when Jesus ministered in the flesh on earth... Rabbinic Judaism grew from Pharisaic sect from what I understand...

And thirdly, if you would read and believe what the New Testament says about the law or Torah, you would be able to rejoice in the liberty of the children of Abraham

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I pray that as a Messianic Jew that you are able to be a witness to others of the Jewish faith and can lead them into the liberty and peace found in the Messiah, both your Jesus and mine. I was a gentile and now a saint but we both share in the salvation of the true Lamb of God , Jesus Christ.

I also pray that you will be able to apply and understand that the Torah, the law was our schoolmaster, though no longer and that you can:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Alaska
May 2nd 2009, 03:03 AM
If you can give me a scripture that prohibits polygamy to all, I will shine your shoes.

Gen. 2:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Notice the use of the singular in all places underlined above.
The word "they" in verse 24 is very clearly written with regard to that immediate context: one man and one woman. Verse 24 plainly refers to "his wife" not 'his wives'.
Jesus referred back to this foundational and unmoveable revelation to denounce divorce, allowed by Moses only temporarily for the hardness of their hearts.

Since there is no commandment found anywhere, where God allows it, and since here in Genesis it is very plain what God's plan is, my next question is, where you live, do you have UPS? I need to figure out how to get my shoes to you.

Emanate
May 20th 2009, 09:15 PM
Gen. 2:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Notice the use of the singular in all places underlined above.
The word "they" in verse 24 is very clearly written with regard to that immediate context: one man and one woman. Verse 24 plainly refers to "his wife" not 'his wives'.
Jesus referred back to this foundational and unmoveable revelation to denounce divorce, allowed by Moses only temporarily for the hardness of their hearts.

Since there is no commandment found anywhere, where God allows it, and since here in Genesis it is very plain what God's plan is, my next question is, where you live, do you have UPS? I need to figure out how to get my shoes to you.

Actually, I said prohibit, which the above passage does not. Even Paul gave single instances of when polygamy was prohibited and for whom.

Emanate
May 20th 2009, 09:16 PM
Hi Emanate,

I don't want to misunderstand you here. Could you please take the time to relate your understanding of how the lamb in this passage is not a sacrifice for sin? Sorry if I may have worded that out of your context.

Peace,
Joe


I did mispeak, I was referring to atonement.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77