Not Just Ten commandments!!!!!

[Emanate]

I do not see how one take this text as inspired Scripture and still maintain that Torah has not been abolished at least in a sense. Do you deny that by "the law", Paul is referring to the Torah?

That is exactly the case. Saul is referring to Jewish Law, not Scripture.

[Firstfruits]

That is exactly the case. Saul is referring to Jewish Law, not Scripture.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that Jewish Law is not according to scripture?

Firstfruits

[Emanate]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that Jewish Law is not according to scripture?

Firstfruits

Jewish Law is based loosely (very loosely) on Scripture, but it is not according to Scripture, in fact it is viewed as taking precedence over Scripture.

[Philip dT]

Actually in Judaism the five books of Moses are referred to as the Chumash. Torah, in Judaism, refers to the Oral Law and Rabbinic Authority.

The Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ״ך‎) (IPA: [taˈnax] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is the Bible used in Judaism. The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanach


My personal Biblia Hebraica at home is devided as such.

My statement therefore still remains valid

[drew]

The source of confusion lies in regarding the status of the Torah of God is that while it is true that the underyling moral aspect of the Torah of Moses is indeed unchanging (as Yeshua testified to), the various ceremonial and civil laws, which are a function of the covenantal expression of the Torah, may not be.

In other words, were God to make a new covenant with Israel, then, though the moral aspects of Torah would still be eternally binding (Love your God, neighbor, etc.), the ritual expressions of the covenant might undergo change, based on new terms of the agreement.

I am a bit surprised to read this from you. And I certainly agree with this. As I have been repeatedly pointing out, Paul indeed claims in Eph 2 that there is a sense in which the Torah has been abolished. And I believe you have correctly discerned that sense when you refer to the changeability of the ritual expressions of the covenant.

The undergirding moral aspects indeed do not change. But other parts of what many people consider to be the Torah do change, as you point out.

So I am a little confused as to why you appear to deny the teaching of Ephesians 2 in respect to the abolition of "parts" of the Torah.

Perhaps our disagreement here is purely terminological. Perhaps you think that when I say that there is a sense in which in Torah has been abolished, that I am referring to "moral" aspect of it. I am not. I include what you call "ritual expressions of the covenant" as also being embraced by the word Torah.

So perhaps we are on the same page after all.

[drew]

My version would be to listen to God via his entire Word and through the Holy Spirit. Allow Jesus to be your teacher and don't call anyone else your teacher, not me, not your pastor, not any human.

As I continue in my walk, I discover depth in the correct context, the correct translations, the Biblical mindset, the Biblical culture God shaped, and the Biblical worldview.

Jesus will teach you according to His will and His plan for you.

Be blessed.

This is not an answer. It is a somewhat patronizing and dismissive statement implying that I need simply need to submit myself to God and then I will see things your way.

Please answer the question:

Let me put it this way. Paul obviously meant something when he wrote this:

15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Let me ask you to re-write this phrase to express what you think he meant. I will do the same as follows:

"...by doing away with those elements of the Torah that previously functioned to demarcate the Jew from the Gentile"

Now please give us your version.

[Firstfruits]

I am a bit surprised to read this from you. And I certainly agree with this. As I have been repeatedly pointing out, Paul indeed claims in Eph 2 that there is a sense in which the Torah has been abolished. And I believe you have correctly discerned that sense when you refer to the changeability of the ritual expressions of the covenant.

The undergirding moral aspects indeed do not change. But other parts of what many people consider to be the Torah do change, as you point out.

So I am a little confused as to why you appear to deny the teaching of Ephesians 2 in respect to the abolition of "parts" of the Torah.

Perhaps our disagreement here is purely terminological. Perhaps you think that when I say that there is a sense in which in Torah has been abolished, that I am referring to "moral" aspect of it. I am not. I include what you call "ritual expressions of the covenant" as also being embraced by the word Torah.

So perhaps we are on the same page after all.

I believe from what has been said that we are truly on the same page.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

[Firstfruits]

Jewish Law is based loosely (very loosely) on Scripture, but it is not according to Scripture, in fact it is viewed as taking precedence over Scripture.

Thank you Emanate,

I believe there are many that did not know that, so thank you for the information.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

[drew]

Someone doesn't know it, but they are quoting the devil.
Paul did not say what that wicked quote above says.
Such trashy paraphrasing/interpreting should be banned on discussion forums.

Jesus to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles plainly made reference to commandments that the NT require, and which were also required under the OT. Adherence to such is mandatory for salvation in the NT.

The absolute despicable crime committed by such filthy paraphrasing!

The text says what it says. Here is the relevant paragraph rendered in three different versions. They all make it clear that there is a sense in which the Torah - the law - has been abolished.

NIV

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.


NASB
11Therefore remember that (AE)formerly (AF)you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "(AG)Uncircumcision" by the so-called "(AH)Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--

12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (AI)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (AJ)the covenants of promise, having (AK)no hope and (AL)without God in the world.
13But now in (AM)Christ Jesus you who (AN)formerly were (AO)far off have (AP)been brought near (AQ)by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is (AR)our peace, (AS)who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by (AT)abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU)the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

Youngs Literal

11Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands,

12that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world;
13and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ,
14for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away,

It should not surprise people that there are elements of the Torah that have been abolished - as Paul clearly says it has in this very text from Ephesians. The Torah was given to the Jews for a purpose. That purpose was fulfilled at Calvary. So there is a sense in which the Torah can now be retired with honour.

And Paul makes exactly this argument - those elements of Torah that mark the Jew as distinct from the Gentile (Sabbath, purity laws, circumcision) have been abolished. Torah, specifically in its functions of being an ethnic charter for the Jews with prescriptions that marked out the Jew from the Gentile, has been done away with.

I am not saying that any moral dimensions of the Torah have been abolished. I am saying (that Paul is saying) that those parts of the Torah that mark the Jew out as distinctive have been abolished.

This is a complicated topic. Paul makes statements in places like Romans 3:31 that Torah is affirmed. And he makes statements like the one above about it is abolished. This is tricky, but I think we can indeed affirm both - there is are aspects of Torah that remain in force (the underlying moral framework) and there are aspects that have been abolished (the "ceremonial" stuff).

[Emanate]

The Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ״ך‎) (IPA: [taˈnax] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is the Bible used in Judaism. The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanach


My personal Biblia Hebraica at home is devided as such.

My statement therefore still remains valid

There is no argument on the names of the books. BUt if you "talk Torah" with an Orthodox rabbi, you will certainly not be speaking of your Biblia Hebraica.

Torah, (תורה) is a Hebrew word meaning "teaching", "instruction", or especially "law". It primarily refers to the first section of the Tanakh–the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, or the Five Books of Moses, but can also be used in the general sense to also include both the Written and Oral Law.

The five books are:

Genesis (Berei**** בראשית),
Exodus (Shemot שמות),
Leviticus (Vayikra ויקרא),
Numbers (Bemidbar במדבר) and
Deuteronomy (Devarim דברים)
Collectively they are also known as the Pentateuch (Greek for "five containers", where containers presumably refers to the scroll cases in which books were being kept), Hamisha Humshei Torah (חמשה חומשי תורה) (Hebrew for "the five parts of the Torah", or just Humash חומש "fifth" for short) or Chumash.

A Torah is a specially written scroll of the five books, a Sefer Torah. Jews also use the word Torah, in a wider sense, to refer to the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history. In this sense it might include the entire Tanakh, the Mishnah, the Talmud and the midrashic literature.

from: http://www.milechai.com/judaism/torah.html

[keck553]

This is not an answer. It is a somewhat patronizing and dismissive statement implying that I need simply need to submit myself to God and then I will see things your way.

Please answer the question:

Paul teaches us not to quibble over Torah. And I wouldn't patronize you, and certainly did not indicate God would 'make you see things my way'. In fact I advised you quite the opposite. That would make me self-righteous, which I assure you I am incapable of even approaching on my own.

let's leave it as 'terminology'. I study the Hebrew context and with the Greek context, I interpolate using the Lexicon's translation of TeNaKh words and terms. The result has been a separation of my worldview from that of Greek philosophy, which was once all I knew. I am well aware of the issue. The result doesn't make me better or worse, increase or decrease my faith and trust. It allows me to discover the beauty, awe, amazing timng and perfect design of God's creation. It allows me a clear glimpse of facets God's character He choose to reveal. I seek His face with all my heart.

It's my hope that all these discussions, even when controversial would encourage anyone reading who is zealous after God's own heart to see some greater depth than they may get in thier candy-coated politically correct sunday sermon, not rely on human teachings, but learn enough about the culture God created to bless the nations to see His awesome glory and pefrectness in His plan of redemption.

[drew]

Paul teaches us not to quibble over Torah. And I wouldn't patronize you, and certainly did not indicate God would 'make you see things my way'. In fact I advised you quite the opposite. That would make me self-righteous, which I assure you I am incapable of even approaching on my own.

let's leave it as 'terminology'. I study the Hebrew context and with the Greek context, I interpolate using the Lexicon's translation of TeNaKh words and terms. The result has been a separation of my worldview from that of Greek philosophy, which was once all I knew. I am well aware of the issue. The result doesn't make me better or worse, increase or decrease my faith and trust. It allows me to discover the beauty, awe, amazing timng and perfect design of God's creation. It allows me a clear glimpse of facets God's character He choose to reveal. I seek His face with all my heart.

It's my hope that all these discussions, even when controversial would encourage anyone reading who is zealous after God's own heart to see some greater depth than they may get in thier candy-coated politically correct sunday sermon, not rely on human teachings, but learn enough about the culture God created to bless the nations to see His awesome glory and pefrectness in His plan of redemption.

I will ask one last time and then let it drop:

What do you think Paul intends us to understand when he writes these specific words:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

Something called "the law" has had something happen to it. What has happened to it? It has been abolished. What is "the law"? Based on context, I think it has to refer to Torah, or at least a subset of Torah.

What do you think Paul is saying in these words above?

[Ta-An]

Jewish Law is based loosely (very loosely) on Scripture, but it is not according to Scripture, in fact it is viewed as taking precedence over Scripture.

On what do you base your answer
ALL 613 laws are extracted from scripture

See all three links, they all say the same..... each law WITH a scripture reference http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2...613%20laws.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/613laws.html

For proper definitions of what you are talking about please go see this :

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

[Emanate]

On what do you base your answer
ALL 613 laws are extracted from scripture

See all three links, they all say the same..... each law WITH a scripture reference http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2...613%20laws.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/613laws.html

For proper definitions of what you are talking about please go see this :

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Jewish Law is not the 613 commands. Jewish Law is the volumes of subcategories of commands based upon extrapolation of the 613 commands. For example, the candle lighting prayer. None of the 613 commands tell us to light a candle before Sabbath. yet, that is part of Jewish Law.

[Alaska]

"the law of commandments" "contained in ordinances" is in a big way something different than what Paul plainly refers to when he speaks of the law having been crucified with Christ. He is pointing to what the cross did for us in defeating the sin nature we are all born with.

"the law of commandments" "contained in ordinances" is NOT in any way a reference to non-biblical Talmudic type of rules. If that is maintained for a lack of a better explanation, why not write off Paul's reference to what was written in stones as not being the ten commandments? Does anybody know of anything else written in stone?

The law as it stood, [including its moral absolutes that the NT now also require] was not able in and of itself to bring righteousness. There had to be a new covenant with better promises and a source of strength since the law was weak.
So the law, in that weakened condition, [not having the strength we are now familiar with, which strength was only manifested by the resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost] has been taken to the cross like Paul said. But it didn't end there.
Christ rose from the dead.
We are under a New Covenant.

Though the ten commandments are said by Paul to have been abolished, this is speaking in the sense that they have been replaced by a New Covenant.
True, they have been abolished as they stood in their context without power and weak and serving to condemn, having not the power of the new man and the resurrection through Christ's sacrifice.

There are major changes between the two covenants. For example: under the NT keeping the Sabbath is an option, it is not an obligation listed among absolute moral obligations like in the ten. We are not under the ten per se. We are under the NT that magnifies or changes the ten in one way or another.
In the NT covetousness is idolatry, hatred is the essence of murder, divorce and remarriage is adultery, losing our life is how we find it, etc

A model T Ford is no longer current, yet it has wheels. It is not in production. It has been abolished in that sense. Though a modern Mercedes also has wheels, does this warrant that it is wrong to claim that the Model T is "abolished"?
Though the OT and NT have some identicle requirements. (don't steal, kill, etc) they are very different in thier overall picture in light of what Christ did at the cross and the power of the new birth and the taking away the unnecessary and non-truth things that served a necessary purpose under the OT.