PDA

View Full Version : Information Not Just Ten commandments!!!!!



Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 11:18 AM
God gathered Israel before him at Mount Sinai to speak to them and give them his commandments statues and judgments, however by the time God had spoken to them the tenth commandment the fear of the people was so strong that they no longer wanted to hear directly from God. Every other commandment was then given to Moses and given to Israel.

Deut 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) These words The LORD spake unto all your assembly in The mount out of The midst of The fire, of The cloud, and of The thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote Them in two tables of stone, and delivered Them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

When God therefore speaks of the law of Moses and obedience to it God is not Just referring to the first ten.

God bless.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 14th 2008, 12:30 PM
Here's one for you:
Deuteronomy 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Notice it says 'side' of the ark? The tablets of stone, containing the ten, were inside the ark, but these were placed on the side of it. God Himself puts a distrinction between them.

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 03:27 PM
Here's one for you:
Deuteronomy 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Notice it says 'side' of the ark? The tablets of stone, containing the ten, were inside the ark, but these were placed on the side of it. God Himself puts a distrinction between them.

The ten were the ones spoken directly to Israel and as it is written are the words of the covenant, but that does not diminish the other commandments that God gave because they did not want to hear directly from God.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 14th 2008, 04:58 PM
True enough. Nevertheless, God put a disctinction between them.
And I think that disctinction remains today. The law (ie 10 commandments) is written upon our heart (our innermost part, where the Holy Spirit dwells), while the others are outward.
And those 10 preceded the others, existing prior to the Mosaic covenant.

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 05:15 PM
True enough. Nevertheless, God put a disctinction between them.
And I think that disctinction remains today. The law (ie 10 commandments) is written upon our heart (our innermost part, where the Holy Spirit dwells), while the others are outward.
And those 10 preceded the others, existing prior to the Mosaic covenant.

In the following God said that in order for Israel to receive the blessings/benefits they must keep all his commandments, there was not diistinction made.

Deut 28:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

Deut 28:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.

31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

Remember that this is after the ten were given.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 06:59 PM
Ex 20:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
Ex 20:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Ex 20:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
Ex 20:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
Ex 20:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

It was nor God that said that he would not continue to speak and give Israel his law as he had begun, so if it had not been for the fear that Israel had then the time that Moses had stayed away in the mount being given the rest of the commandments statues and judgments, Israel would have continued to share the experience.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 14th 2008, 08:04 PM
Right. The Mosaic covenant INCLUDED the 10 commandments, but the entire covenant was incumbant upon them.
It is interesting that they refused to stand and hear it from God. I believe God wanted a relationship with all of them, as He had with Moses, but they refused because of their fear, and probably also because of the hardness of their hearts.
Later on, they even rejected Him as their king, wanting a human king like all the other nations.

yaza
Sep 15th 2008, 01:23 AM
Right. The Mosaic covenant INCLUDED the 10 commandments, but the entire covenant was incumbant upon them.
It is interesting that they refused to stand and hear it from God. I believe God wanted a relationship with all of them, as He had with Moses, but they refused because of their fear, and probably also because of the hardness of their hearts.
Later on, they even rejected Him as their king, wanting a human king like all the other nations.
we have not come to that mountian, we have come to the heavenly jerusalem the one that is free from the law of moses. this is the new covenant. were we have freedom to serve god in the spirit, as jesus is our high preist and mediator NOT MOSES! in this law of moses you speak of the punishment is also included and very specific, you people who want to be under the law of moses never mention this, are you saying that the penalty for disobeying has been abolished? or that christ took our punishment, and we should try a little harder to obey the law? does'nt the bible say that god took away the first to establish the new covenant , we recieved the spirit of god by believing not obeying. the same way the people of isreal were killed in the desert because they did'nt believe. besides god revoked this covenant with isreal and judah. zech 11:10 you see its all about believing not obeying! living by the spirit and producing the fruits of the spirit. that is what you need to be consentrating on and not the law moses. god loves you and wants you to come to him through jesus and not moses. yaza




1

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 02:49 AM
yaza, you're sure making alot of assumptions and unwarranted accusations.
You seem to have gotten way more out of my post than I put in there! ;)

SIG
Sep 15th 2008, 03:00 AM
The ten were the ones spoken directly to Israel and as it is written are the words of the covenant, but that does not diminish the other commandments that God gave because they did not want to hear directly from God.

Firstfruits

Are you saying we are bound to keep the 613?

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 06:54 AM
Are you saying we are bound to keep the 613?

If you are under the law of Moses, then yes, or else where in the ten commandments are the feasts, tithing and all the other things that are done because they are written in the law.

Firstfruits

Richard H
Sep 15th 2008, 08:33 AM
This is the situation as I see it:
I don’t keep the letter of the law concerning the covenant of Moses, but I do keep the Ten Commandments in the spirit of the law.

I simply don’t feel free to commit murder and adultery and to bear false witness, etc.
I don’t for a moment think that any of you do either.

It seems to me that only one commandment might you find objectionable - the Sabbath.
I reject the edict of the Pope (c321 AD) (following the Constantine’s pagan-Christian synthesis),
and choose to worship on the day of the week which the Father sanctified. (Gen 2:3)

Because of this, it is assumed that I “keep the law of Moses” and thus determined that I am
disrespecting God for choosing a day of His choosing (His “Plan-A”),
rather than accepting what the rest of society blindly follows as tradition. (Man’s Plan-B)

Some even try to load Sabbath keepers with the added baggage of keeping the
600+ Mosaic “how-to” instructions which we have all been freed of.
…Including animal offerings – which I take offence to -
for the honor of my Lord and Savior who already paid the ultimate horrible price.

So as I see it, it is really only the Sabbath which some find so distasteful.


Thou shalt not kill. OK
Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me. OK
Thou shalt not take My name in vain. OK
Thou shalt remember to keep the Sabbath holy. Note to self: Get rid of this thing!!!
Thou shalt honor thy father and mother. OK
Thou shalt not kill. OK
Thou shalt not commit adultery. OK
Thou shalt not steal. OK
Thou shalt not bear false witness. OK
Thou shalt not covet. OK

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 10:17 AM
This is the situation as I see it:
I don’t keep the letter of the law concerning the covenant of Moses, but I do keep the Ten Commandments in the spirit of the law.

I simply don’t feel free to commit murder and adultery and to bear false witness, etc.
I don’t for a moment think that any of you do either.

It seems to me that only one commandment might you find objectionable - the Sabbath.
I reject the edict of the Pope (c321 AD) (following the Constantine’s pagan-Christian synthesis),
and choose to worship on the day of the week which the Father sanctified. (Gen 2:3)

Because of this, it is assumed that I “keep the law of Moses” and thus determined that I am
disrespecting God for choosing a day of His choosing (His “Plan-A”),
rather than accepting what the rest of society blindly follows as tradition. (Man’s Plan-B)

Some even try to load Sabbath keepers with the added baggage of keeping the
600+ Mosaic “how-to” instructions which we have all been freed of.
…Including animal offerings – which I take offence to -
for the honor of my Lord and Savior who already paid the ultimate horrible price.

So as I see it, it is really only the Sabbath which some find so distasteful.


Thou shalt not kill. OK
Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me. OK
Thou shalt not take My name in vain. OK
Thou shalt remember to keep the Sabbath holy. Note to self: Get rid of this thing!!!
Thou shalt honor thy father and mother. OK
Thou shalt not kill. OK
Thou shalt not commit adultery. OK
Thou shalt not steal. OK
Thou shalt not bear false witness. OK
Thou shalt not covet. OK


It is clear that God gave more than ten commandments, it was only because of fear that God did not speak all his commandments to Israel. God did not say keep only the first ten but all that he had commanded, so can we pick and choose which commandments we observe?

Deut 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) These words The LORD spake unto all your assembly in The mount out of The midst of The fire, of The cloud, and of The thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote Them in two tables of stone, and delivered Them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

With God it was all or nothing.

Deut 11:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

Deut 11:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:

Deut 11:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Deut 28:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
Deut 28:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and Cursed shalt thou be in the field.
Deut 28:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
Deut 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
Deut 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and Cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

Firstfruits

graceforme
Sep 15th 2008, 11:08 AM
I would love to meet the person who can obey all the law. I've never met an absolutely perfect, totally sinless person before.

The law was given a a schoolmaster to lead mankind to the Savior. No one can keep the law, and anyone who thinks they can is only fooling themselves.

Galatians 3:19-25 tells us the true intent of the law. "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, veriily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Chrsit might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The law was fulfilled by Christ. If we try to live under the law, and we break even one law, we are guilty of breaking them all. (James 2:10) I surely don't want that hanging over my head.

The law declares us to be a sinner by showing us that there is no possible way for us to fulfill the law. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20).

Praise God that He provided the way for us to live under grace. One difference between living under the law and living under grace is the heart motivation. The believer under grace is motivated to live a holy life by the love of Christ, not the ordinances of the law. If we go back to the Old Testament to find our rules for living, we are placing ourselves back under the law. Paul described this condition in Galatians 5:4 as "fallen from grace."

Many blessings to all.

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 11:56 AM
I would love to meet the person who can obey all the law. I've never met an absolutely perfect, totally sinless person before.

The law was given a a schoolmaster to lead mankind to the Savior. No one can keep the law, and anyone who thinks they can is only fooling themselves.

Galatians 3:19-25 tells us the true intent of the law. "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, veriily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Chrsit might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The law was fulfilled by Christ. If we try to live under the law, and we break even one law, we are guilty of breaking them all. (James 2:10) I surely don't want that hanging over my head.

The law declares us to be a sinner by showing us that there is no possible way for us to fulfill the law. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20).

Praise God that He provided the way for us to live under grace. One difference between living under the law and living under grace is the heart motivation. The believer under grace is motivated to live a holy life by the love of Christ, not the ordinances of the law. If we go back to the Old Testament to find our rules for living, we are placing ourselves back under the law. Paul described this condition in Galatians 5:4 as "fallen from grace."

Many blessings to all.

Thank you Graceforme,

Do the following mean that if we are keeping the Mosaic law that we are not living according to grace?

Rom 9:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Rom 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 15th 2008, 12:53 PM
Important for us as New Testament Christians is the New Testament perspective on the law.

1. "The law" in the gospels and most of Paul's treatises about "the law", the whole of the Torah is in mind, including all the commandments. The whole law has been fulfilled (pleroô) by and through Christ: that means accomplish, complete, end.

2. Nowhere in the New Testament, a distinction is made between the ten commandments and the rest of the law. "The law" always includes the ten commandments and all the other laws. All of them has ended in Christ for those who believe and walk through the Spirit.

3. The great commandment of love (God and my neighbour as myself) is the only law given in the New Testament, for it fulfills the underlying principles, morality and ethics underlying to all Old Testament laws, and much more. This is a principle and not a set of do's and don'ts. We live by this principle if we are led by the Spirit in freedom and not subject to the letter.

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 02:01 PM
Important for us as New Testament Christians is the New Testament perspective on the law.

1. "The law" in the gospels and most of Paul's treatises about "the law", the whole of the Torah is in mind, including all the commandments. The whole law has been fulfilled (pleroô) by and through Christ: that means accomplish, complete, end.

2. Nowhere in the New Testament, a distinction is made between the ten commandments and the rest of the law. "The law" always includes the ten commandments and all the other laws. All of them has ended in Christ for those who believe and walk through the Spirit.

3. The great commandment of love (God and my neighbour as myself) is the only law given in the New Testament, for it fulfills the underlying principles, morality and ethics underlying to all Old Testament laws, and much more. This is a principle and not a set of do's and don'ts. We live by this principle if we are led by the Spirit in freedom and not subject to the letter.

Thank you Philip dt,

That was very informative.

God bless you

Firstfruits

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 02:10 PM
There are so many "thou shalts" in the Old Testament. I am still genuninely confused as to which ones we ought to follow. For instance, there is a command to bake bread with human feces, if I recall. Sounds odd, but it is true!

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 02:24 PM
There are so many "thou shalts" in the Old Testament. I am still genuninely confused as to which ones we ought to follow. For instance, there is a command to bake bread with human feces, if I recall. Sounds odd, but it is true!

If you are under the Mosaic law then you are obliged to keep all that God has commanded.

32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

That is according to the Mosaic covenant.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 02:39 PM
There are so many "thou shalts" in the Old Testament. I am still genuninely confused as to which ones we ought to follow. For instance, there is a command to bake bread with human feces, if I recall. Sounds odd, but it is true!

Actually, that was a specific command to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people.
It's actually quite easy to understand what we should follow. The Word says that the Holy Spirit writes the law upon our heart. Therefore, whatever the Holy Spirit has put in your heart to do, do that. Don't worry about the rest.

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 02:42 PM
Actually, that was a specific command to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people


Aren't the ten commandments specific commands to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people?

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 02:43 PM
If you are under the Mosaic law then you are obliged to keep all that God has commanded.


So do you not believe that we ought to follow all of God's commands?

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 02:45 PM
Actually, that was a specific command to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people.
It's actually quite easy to understand what we should follow. The Word says that the Holy Spirit writes the law upon our heart. Therefore, whatever the Holy Spirit has put in your heart to do, do that. Don't worry about the rest.

But is Jesus not that spirit?

2 Cor 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Cor 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

So therefore we have Jesus in our heart, and do as he has commanded.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 02:48 PM
Aren't the ten commandments specific commands to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people?

:D Good point. But the message that prophet was to give was NOT that they should cook bread with dung. Rather it was a prophetic act showing the people that because of their rebellion and idolatry, that is what was going to happen to them.
Firstfruits, yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One..........

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 03:08 PM
Aren't the ten commandments specific commands to a specific prophet to speak a specific message to the people?

The ten commandments are what God spoke directly to Israel, but because of fear they did not want to hear directly from God.

Deut 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) These words The LORD spake unto all your assembly in The mount out of The midst of The fire, of The cloud, and of The thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote Them in two tables of stone, and delivered Them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 03:10 PM
:D Good point. But the message that prophet was to give was NOT that they should cook bread with dung. Rather it was a prophetic act showing the people that because of their rebellion and idolatry, that is what was going to happen to them.
Firstfruits, yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One..........

So we therefore have the law of Christ in our heart as opposed to the law of Moses is that right?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 04:58 PM
Messiah has authority over all of it. John says He is the living D'var (Word) throughout all ages, and throughout all time. Submit to Him and His commands throughout all ages and throughout all time. The aposltes say all the Word is Holy, not just the bits and pieces that make us feel good.

graceforme
Sep 15th 2008, 05:17 PM
Thank you Graceforme,

Do the following mean that if we are keeping the Mosaic law that we are not living according to grace?

Rom 9:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Rom 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Firstfruits

Yes, that's what they mean. If our salvation would be based on works, then it is no longer a free gift. Moreover, it is impossible for anyone to keep the law.

The verse in Romans 9 is referring to the failure of the nation of Israel. They had completely rejected God's program for them - they were His chosen people, a nation of high priests, through whom the Gentile nations could receive their blessings, but because they rejected the Messiah, and continued to trust in their works, they stumbled and fell. Paul was then raised up to bring the grace message, (this was the "mystery" never before revealed) to the Gentiles, and we are living in the dispensation of grace. I, for one, am very grateful to be able to live in the age where grace abounds.

God Bless.

RoadWarrior
Sep 15th 2008, 05:39 PM
There are so many "thou shalts" in the Old Testament. I am still genuninely confused as to which ones we ought to follow. For instance, there is a command to bake bread with human feces, if I recall. Sounds odd, but it is true!

I think you are mistaken. Go and find the scripture which speaks to that, you will see something very different from it being a command to the people.

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 05:48 PM
I think you are mistaken. Go and find the scripture which speaks to that, you will see something very different from it being a command to the people.


Thanks for the heads-up, but I still don't see how I'm misunderstanding this verse. Could you help me?

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 05:49 PM
Yes, that's what they mean. If our salvation would be based on works, then it is no longer a free gift. Moreover, it is impossible for anyone to keep the law.

The verse in Romans 9 is referring to the failure of the nation of Israel. They had completely rejected God's program for them - they were His chosen people, a nation of high priests, through whom the Gentile nations could receive their blessings, but because they rejected the Messiah, and continued to trust in their works, they stumbled and fell. Paul was then raised up to bring the grace message, (this was the "mystery" never before revealed) to the Gentiles, and we are living in the dispensation of grace. I, for one, am very grateful to be able to live in the age where grace abounds.

God Bless.

We're not discussing salvation. Torah was never, ever meant as means to salvation, and that particular disctraction is not applicatble to the discusstion. Perhaps some rabbi's thought or think Torah is a means to salvation, but we're talking about God's intent, not the traditions of men.

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 06:19 PM
{A}Just out of curiosity, how many of you would say that we should obey the following scriptures (not for salvation but for obedience' sake):
1. Matthew 22:36-38 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment.

2. 1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

3. Hebrews 10:22-23 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (23) Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)

4. Romans 14:5-6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]......

5. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

6. Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) (3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

7. Matthew 22:39-40 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

8. Romans 13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

I numbered them so that if there is one you want to discuss you can easily reference it.

Another question: {B} Is it possible to obey a law, say 'do not kill' without trying to earn salvation, or put another way, is it possible to to obey a law simply because you want to, instead of trying to earn salvation?

Another question: {C}Do Christians sin, and if so, what is your definition of sin?

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 06:52 PM
So do you not believe that we ought to follow all of God's commands?

According to which covenant would that be?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 06:55 PM
Another question: {B} Is it possible to obey a law, say 'do not kill' without trying to earn salvation, or put another way, is it possible to to obey a law simply because you want to, instead of trying to earn salvation?

Another question: {C}Do Christians sin, and if so, what is your definition of sin?

B - Yes. Because I love God and His Way is profitable to my spiritual, physical and mental health.

C - I don't to come up with a definition. God provides it. And truely I thank Him, or there would be 6 Billion definitions instead of His.

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 07:30 PM
B - Yes. Because I love God and His Way is profitable to my spiritual, physical and mental health.

C - I don't to come up with a definition. God provides it. And truely I thank Him, or there would be 6 Billion definitions instead of His.

That is very much like the benefits of the Mosaic covenant, but that would mean that you are keeping all that God has commanded, otherwise you cannot get them.

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 15th 2008, 07:41 PM
Kathar,

I would say all of them you name are contained, kept and summed up by the commandment of love for God and your neighbour as yourself (as Rom 13:9-10 points out).

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 07:44 PM
Kathar,

I would say all of them you name are contained, kept and summed up by the commandment of love for God and your neighbour as yourself (as Rom 13:9-10 points out).

And right you are. They actually explain 'how' to love God and neighbor, do they not?

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 07:46 PM
Kathar,

I would say all of them you name are contained, kept and summed up by the commandment of love for God and your neighbour as yourself (as Rom 13:9-10 points out).

Amen to that Philip.

Firstfruits

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 08:51 PM
According to which covenant would that be?


Well, God's laws are eternal; they are not transient like man's.

Philip dT
Sep 15th 2008, 09:02 PM
And right you are. They actually explain 'how' to love God and neighbor, do they not?

Yes, I would say that all that the New Testament says concerning morality and ethics, gives detail to the "new commandment" of love.

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 09:04 PM
Yes, I would say that all that the New Testament says concerning morality and ethics, gives detail to the "new commandment" of love.

Really? What does the 'new testament' say about a man marrying his sister?

And what did Paul teach from ? There was no 'new testament' in the 1st Century, only scrolls that make up the TeNaKh.

Kahtar
Sep 15th 2008, 09:16 PM
Yes, I would say that all that the New Testament says concerning morality and ethics, gives detail to the "new commandment" of love.

Yes, except that it is not a new commandment. It has been from the beginning.
2 John 1:5-6 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. (6) And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Deuteronomy 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

RoadWarrior
Sep 15th 2008, 10:33 PM
There are so many "thou shalts" in the Old Testament. I am still genuninely confused as to which ones we ought to follow. For instance, there is a command to bake bread with human feces, if I recall. Sounds odd, but it is true!


I think you are mistaken. Go and find the scripture which speaks to that, you will see something very different from it being a command to the people.


Thanks for the heads-up, but I still don't see how I'm misunderstanding this verse. Could you help me?

Hi Coptichristian,

I am guessing that your reference is to the prophet Ezekiel. I'll paste in the scripture.

Eze 4:12-17
12 And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight."
13 Then the Lord said, "So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them."
14 So I said, "Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth."
15 Then He said to me, "See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it."
16 Moreover He said to me, "Son of man, surely I will cut off the supply of bread in Jerusalem; they shall eat bread by weight and with anxiety, and shall drink water by measure and with dread, 17 that they may lack bread and water, and be dismayed with one another, and waste away because of their iniquity.
NKJV

It will be better if you read the full story, as God has called and chosen Ezekiel for a specific purpose, to carry a specific message to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah, "because of their iniquity."

The directive to use human dung was so totally repugnant to Ezekiel (who had always been careful to follow Gods laws), that God relented and allowed him to use cow dung instead. The message that God wanted to convey to the people was how very foul and repugnant their idolatry had become to Him.

God has given many warnings and called out to the Hebrew nations many times, and they have ignored and rejected them. What He is now telling them through Ezekiel, is the level and the length of the suffering that they will have to endure as a consequence of their sin.

The specific message about the bread is that what they will have to eat in their captivity is going to be defiled, unclean food, and even that will be in very short supply.

Great suffering was coming to these people. Those who survived the war were carried off as slaves to Babylon and suffered there just as Ezekiel had prophesied.

Coptichristian
Sep 15th 2008, 11:44 PM
It will be better if you read the full story, as God has called and chosen Ezekiel for a specific purpose, to carry a specific message to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah, "because of their iniquity."

The directive to use human dung was so totally repugnant to Ezekiel (who had always been careful to follow Gods laws), that God relented and allowed him to use cow dung instead. The message that God wanted to convey to the people was how very foul and repugnant their idolatry had become to Him.

God has given many warnings and called out to the Hebrew nations many times, and they have ignored and rejected them. What He is now telling them through Ezekiel, is the level and the length of the suffering that they will have to endure as a consequence of their sin.

The specific message about the bread is that what they will have to eat in their captivity is going to be defiled, unclean food, and even that will be in very short supply.

Great suffering was coming to these people. Those who survived the war were carried off as slaves to Babylon and suffered there just as Ezekiel had prophesied.


I see. So God told them that they had to eat human poop, but settled to let them eat cow poop in order to appease Ezekiel's complaining? I should have read the passage more attentively. Thanks.

RoadWarrior
Sep 16th 2008, 12:16 AM
I see. So God told them that they had to eat human poop, but settled to let them eat cow poop in order to appease Ezekiel's complaining? I should have read the passage more attentively. Thanks.

Excuse me? You are not getting it. They are using the dung as fuel.

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 12:27 AM
I see. So God told them that they had to eat human poop, but settled to let them eat cow poop in order to appease Ezekiel's complaining? I should have read the passage more attentively. Thanks.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:06 AM
Well, God's laws are eternal; they are not transient like man's.

Why then did God make a new covenant, which as he said is not the same as the one before?

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 16th 2008, 07:43 AM
Yes, except that it is not a new commandment. It has been from the beginning.
2 John 1:5-6 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. (6) And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Deuteronomy 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

That I am aware of. But it is not without reason that Jesus calls it "a new commandment" (John 13:34). This is also called "the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). The reason for that is that Jesus laid down the New Testament principle of morality and ethics. The new declares the old to be "ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). The law of Christ is a principle, not a written set of laws. It therefore covers the underlying morality and ethics of all the Old Testament laws, and more. This is the only law we as New Testament Christians are given. We are free from the written law if we are led by the Spirit, who enables us to live by Christ's law (Gal 5:18).

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:51 AM
What is the difference between the law of Moses and the law of Christ?

Gal 6:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Phil 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=50&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Acts 13:39 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=39) And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

How do we fulfil the law of Christ?

How do we fulfil the law of Moses?

Firstfruits

pastor_john
Sep 16th 2008, 09:56 AM
God gathered Israel before him at Mount Sinai to speak to them and give them his commandments statues and judgments, however by the time God had spoken to them the tenth commandment the fear of the people was so strong that they no longer wanted to hear directly from God. Every other commandment was then given to Moses and given to Israel.

Deut 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) These words The LORD spake unto all your assembly in The mount out of The midst of The fire, of The cloud, and of The thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote Them in two tables of stone, and delivered Them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

When God therefore speaks of the law of Moses and obedience to it God is not Just referring to the first ten.

God bless.

Firstfruits



Certainly not just the ten commandments. Well, certain denomination would always just refer to the ten when they talk about the law. Now let's have a Biblical search.



What are the commandments and the law? The words spoken in the Holy Spirit are the law, the commandments, the statutes and decrees (Ne9:13-14). The law is the name of the LORD (Deut28:58), and the commandments are also the name of the LORD (Mal2:1-2). The law and the commandments are the LORD GOD (Mt22:35-40).


The words of the LORD spoken by the prophets were the law (2Ki17:13-14, Dan9:9-10). What Paul spoke was also the law (Ac24:14). So, the whole Bible is a book of the law. Therefore, to take the law for the ten commandemts does not agree with the Bible.
Blessings to all!

Philip dT
Sep 16th 2008, 10:17 AM
Certainly not just the ten commandments. Well, certain denomination would always just refer to the ten when they talk about the law. Now let's have a Biblical search.
What are the commandments and the law? The words spoken in the Holy Spirit are the law, the commandments, the statutes and decrees (Ne9:13-14). The law is the name of the LORD (Deut28:58), and the commandments are also the name of the LORD (Mal2:1-2). The law and the commandments are the LORD GOD (Mt22:35-40).

The words of the LORD spoken by the prophets were the law (2Ki17:13-14, Dan9:9-10). What Paul spoke was also the law (Ac24:14). So, the whole Bible is a book of the law. Therefore, to take the law for the ten commandemts does not agree with the Bible.
Blessings to all!Yes, and also if one follows the context in which "nomos" is used in the gospels, it is often used in the construction "the law and the prophets", referring to the whole of the "torah" (five books of Moses), not just specific laws (e.g. Mat 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36,40; 23:23; Luke 2:22-24,27,39; 10:26; 16:16,17; 24:44; John 1:17; 1:46; 7:19,23,49; 8:5; 12:34)

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 11:18 AM
Certainly not just the ten commandments. Well, certain denomination would always just refer to the ten when they talk about the law. Now let's have a Biblical search.





What are the commandments and the law? The words spoken in the Holy Spirit are the law, the commandments, the statutes and decrees (Ne9:13-14). The law is the name of the LORD (Deut28:58), and the commandments are also the name of the LORD (Mal2:1-2). The law and the commandments are the LORD GOD (Mt22:35-40).


The words of the LORD spoken by the prophets were the law (2Ki17:13-14, Dan9:9-10). What Paul spoke was also the law (Ac24:14). So, the whole Bible is a book of the law. Therefore, to take the law for the ten commandemts does not agree with the Bible.
Blessings to all!

Thanks Pastor John,

God bless you.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 11:22 AM
Yes, and also if one follows the context in which "nomos" is used in the gospels, it is often used in the construction "the law and the prophets", referring to the whole of the "torah" (five books of Moses), not just specific laws (e.g. Mat 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36,40; 23:23; Luke 2:22-24,27,39; 10:26; 16:16,17; 24:44; John 1:17; 1:46; 7:19,23,49; 8:5; 12:34)

Thank you Philip dt,

Is the reason why some just teach or hold on to the first ten commandments because they are unaware of the full story as to what happened when God was Giving Israel his commandments?

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 12:36 PM
That I am aware of. But it is not without reason that Jesus calls it "a new commandment" (John 13:34). This is also called "the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). The reason for that is that Jesus laid down the New Testament principle of morality and ethics. The new declares the old to be "ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). The law of Christ is a principle, not a written set of laws. It therefore covers the underlying morality and ethics of all the Old Testament laws, and more. This is the only law we as New Testament Christians are given. We are free from the written law if we are led by the Spirit, who enables us to live by Christ's law (Gal 5:18).

Can't argue with that.And so, in our daily lives, how does the law of Christ actually play out? Is it 'fulfilled' or 'acted out' simply within our hearts and minds, or does it require actually physically doing something?

Marc B
Sep 16th 2008, 01:05 PM
Seems like if you are led by Christ in your life you would want to keep the commandments as best you can. At any rate, like Jesus pointed out, let each person make up his/her own mind in matters of faith. He used clean and unclean foods as an analogy as well as observances of days so If you believe keeping the Sabbath makes you cursed under the law then for you it is a curse, if it is a blessing for you then by all means keep it because for you it is a blessing if I understand the meaning of the scripture correctly. In which case nobody is wrong or right here in matters of law in how they live their faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 02:18 PM
I would like to see red letter Scripture concerning this

pastor_john
Sep 16th 2008, 02:25 PM
Thanks Pastor John,

God bless you.

Firstfruits

The LORD bless you! :)

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 02:29 PM
I would like to see red letter Scripture concerning this

What is it that you want the scripture for?

Firstfruits

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 02:49 PM
Excuse me? You are not getting it. They are using the dung as fuel.


I don't see that being said in the passage. Where do you see that?

Cow crap doesn't make for good fuel, does it?

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 02:51 PM
Why then did God make a new covenant, which as he said is not the same as the one before?

The second convenant is the fulfillment of the first, not a violation of it. God's laws are immutable, for God is not a man that he should change.

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 02:57 PM
I don't see that being said in the passage. Where do you see that?

Cow crap doesn't make for good fuel, does it?

Actually it does, when it's dry. Not the best thing to cook over tho. :D

Do you understand that their having to do this was a result of their idolatry? This was not a command, a law, that God was placing on them, it was the result of their having broken the law that He DID place on them.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 03:06 PM
The second convenant is the fulfillment of the first, not a violation of it. God's laws are immutable, for God is not a man that he should change.

How would you explain the following?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought For the second.

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 16th 2008, 03:11 PM
Kahtar


Can't argue with that.And so, in our daily lives, how does the law of Christ actually play out? Is it 'fulfilled' or 'acted out' simply within our hearts and minds, or does it require actually physically doing something?I would say everything we do must be governed by this principle.

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 03:18 PM
What is it that you want the scripture for?

Firstfruits

The content in Marc B's post. I think it would be relevent and profitable for study,

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 03:20 PM
Kahtar

I would say everything we do must be governed by this principle.

The law of Christ covers all.

Rom 13:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 03:20 PM
How would you explain the following?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought For the second.

Firstfruits

Since the same author also stated Torah was Holy and righteous and Jesus Himself decalred not one jot or tittle would be removed from Torah, one can only come to the conculsion that the fault lies with US.

Specifically the receipients of Torah missed it's intent.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 03:23 PM
Seems like if you are led by Christ in your life you would want to keep the commandments as best you can. At any rate, like Jesus pointed out, let each person make up his/her own mind in matters of faith. He used clean and unclean foods as an analogy as well as observances of days so If you believe keeping the Sabbath makes you cursed under the law then for you it is a curse, if it is a blessing for you then by all means keep it because for you it is a blessing if I understand the meaning of the scripture correctly. In which case nobody is wrong or right here in matters of law in how they live their faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Would these be the law as God gave it to Israel, or the law of Christ, knowing that if there is no difference then there would be no place for the new?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 03:36 PM
Would these be the law as God gave it to Israel, or the law of Christ, knowing that if there is no difference then there would be no place for the new?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Firstfruits


FF - I think you're missing the intent of Torah. Don't feel alone, I missed it's intent most of my life, most of Israel missed it (and continues to miss it), and probably most Christians don't see it either.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 03:43 PM
Since the same author also stated Torah was Holy and righteous and Jesus Himself decalred not one jot or tittle would be removed from Torah, one can only come to the conculsion that the fault lies with US.

Specifically the receipients of Torah missed it's intent.

If the fault lies with us and Gods law is still the same and we still cannot keep it why would he put it in our hearts?

Why did God say that the New covenants is not according to the previous one, which they also had in their hearts?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 03:53 PM
If the fault lies with us and Gods law is still the same and we still cannot keep it why would he put it in our hearts?

Why did God say that the New covenants is not according to the previous one, which they also had in their hearts?

Firstfruits

Have you ever heard Ruach HaKodesh? It's an aweesome promise and a wondeful gift. We need to rely on Him, not our own reasoning.

Blessings.

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 04:51 PM
How would you explain the following?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought For the second.

Firstfruits


What is the fault in the first covenant? The Word that YHWH spoke or the people to whom it was spoken?

Who is fallible - God or people?

RoadWarrior
Sep 16th 2008, 05:09 PM
I don't see that being said in the passage. Where do you see that?

Cow crap doesn't make for good fuel, does it?

Well it might not make the best fuel, but people who live in a desert do not have many options. If there are no trees, what would they burn?

Cow patties are fuel for a great majority of the populations in many countries. In Eastern Turkey, my husband and I took many pictures of people working the cow dung and drying it for fuel. The landscape was barren in all directions for hundreds of miles, and the few trees that they did have were carefully conserved for building material - too precious to just burn up.

The people in the time of Ezekiel were going to be forced to leave their wonderful land of "milk and honey" and be driven out to a wilderness, where there were no trees, and no food. What little food they did have would be the poorest of grass seeds (barley instead of wheat) and they would have to rely on dung for fuel.

God's instruction to Ezekiel to use human dung for fuel was to emphasize how disgusting the sins of the people had become to Him. They were now going to be unclean in His sight, rather than holy in His sight.

It is interesting to read the prayers of later prophets such as Nehemiah and Daniel, as they confessed the sins of the whole people to God, entreating God to forgive them and have mercy. But first, these people had to go through great tribulations.

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 05:28 PM
Thanks roadwarrior. I still don't see where the text lends itself to your intepretation that the feces was used as fuel, though.

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 05:35 PM
Road warrior,

There was a thread concerning the lake of fire and brimstone that seems to have been inexplicably deleted. I was wondering if you or another mod could explain the situation to me. I was subscribed to that thread and was engaged in an very interesting discussion. I would have pmed you or another mod, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. I'd really appreciate it if you looked into this for me. Thanks and God bless.

RoadWarrior
Sep 16th 2008, 05:53 PM
Thanks roadwarrior. I still don't see where the text lends itself to your intepretation that the feces was used as fuel, though.

bake it using fuel of human waste

I really don't know how the scripture could be more clear on this.

Let me try a different version for you.

Eze 4:9-16
12 Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread." 13 Then the Lord said, "This is how Israel will eat defiled bread in the Gentile lands to which I will banish them!"
14 Then I said, "O Sovereign Lord, must I be defiled by using human dung? For I have never been defiled before. From the time I was a child until now I have never eaten any animal that died of sickness or was killed by other animals. I have never eaten any meat forbidden by the law."
15 "All right," the Lord said. "You may bake your bread with cow dung as fuel instead of human dung."
Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

If that does not answer the question for you, then :giveup: .

ProjectPeter
Sep 16th 2008, 06:21 PM
I don't see that being said in the passage. Where do you see that?

Cow crap doesn't make for good fuel, does it?Sure it does. Burns very well actually and the westward pioneer's used to collect it and put it in sheets they had attached to their wagons so they could use it for fuel when firewood wasn't available. Since they only eat grass etc... when it dries it burns very hot and for quite a while surprisingly enough.

Keep in mind too... he was first told to use human feces to cook his food with but God allowed him to use the cow dung instead after it freaked Ezekiel out.

Ezekiel 4:11 "And the water you drink will be the sixth part of a hin by measure; you shall drink it from time to time.
12 "And you shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."
13 Then the LORD said, "Thus shall the sons of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I shall banish them."
14 But I said, "Ah, Lord GOD ! Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth."
15 Then He said to me, "See, I shall give you cow's dung in place of human dung over which you will prepare your bread."

And again as was stated before... this was not a command for the people. It was a command to Ezekiel to do as an object lesson (for lack of a better term) to the people of Israel.

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 06:33 PM
Kahtar

I would say everything we do must be governed by this principle.

Well, yes, but that doesn't really answer my question, does it? It almost does, though. 'everything we do' = what? What do we do?
Is it enough to just SAY we love our neighbor? Or is it enough to just FEEL love in our hearts toward our neighbor? Or are we expected to DO something as well?
James 2:14-18 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Another question: We are not saved by works. We all know this. Would you agree that that same principle applies to the law of Christ as well as the law of Moses? Will keeping the law of Christ save you? Or are you putting yourself under the law by keeping the law of Christ?

God is triune. God the Father and God the Son are one and the same God. Therefore the law of God and the law of Christ would be the same law, would it not?

I don't really expect anyone to answer these. No one has answered my questions in this thread yet. But I'll ask them anyway. Perhaps it will cause some to think beyond their narrow little boxes.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 06:56 PM
Well, yes, but that doesn't really answer my question, does it? It almost does, though. 'everything we do' = what? What do we do?
Is it enough to just SAY we love our neighbor? Or is it enough to just FEEL love in our hearts toward our neighbor? Or are we expected to DO something as well?
James 2:14-18 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Another question: We are not saved by works. We all know this. Would you agree that that same principle applies to the law of Christ as well as the law of Moses? Will keeping the law of Christ save you? Or are you putting yourself under the law by keeping the law of Christ?

God is triune. God the Father and God the Son are one and the same God. Therefore the law of God and the law of Christ would be the same law, would it not?

I don't really expect anyone to answer these. No one has answered my questions in this thread yet. But I'll ask them anyway. Perhaps it will cause some to think beyond their narrow little boxes.

Though we are not saved by works, however we are to show love to one another.

Heb 6:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

1 Thess 1:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=52&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

1 Cor 15:58 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=58) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Eph 4:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

I hope that answers your question.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 07:00 PM
Answers one or two of them. Thanks FF. ;)

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:10 PM
Answers one or two of them. Thanks FF. ;)

God is triune. God the Father and God the Son are one and the same God. Therefore the law of God and the law of Christ would be the same law, would it not?

If they are the same then why can we not be justified by doing what is written in the law whereas we can be justified by doing what Jesus has commanded?

Acts 13:39 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=39) And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Gal 6:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Can you fulfil the law of Moses by showing love to on another?

Heb 8:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued Not in my covenant, and I regarded them Not, saith the Lord.

They are not the same.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 07:44 PM
If they are the same then why can we not be justified by doing what is written in the law whereas we can be justified by doing what Jesus has commanded?


Where does it say we are justified by fulfilling the law of Christ? We are not justified by our works, whether they be according to the old or new covenant. We are justified by faith in Christ. Period. But our works show our faith. Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.


Can you fulfil the law of Moses by showing love to on another?


Yes, you can. Because, as Jesus said, all the law and prophets hang upon the two, loving God and loving neighbor. And the OT law SAID to love God and love neighbor.
Only thing is, you cannot perfectly fulfill the law of God, be it through the old or the new covenant. You cannot perfectly fulfill the law of Christ either (which, since Christ IS God, is therefore the law of God). But THAT is the reason Christ came.

If you closely examine the 613 laws of the old covenant, you will find that each of them fits into one of two categories, either loving God, or loving neighbor.
The law written upon stone is the physical law. The law written upon our hearts is the spiritual law. The physical law said 'You shall not kill', the spiritual law says 'If you are even angry with your brother without a cause, you have already killed him in your heart'.
The physical law says 'Don't kill your brother'. The Spiritual law says 'Bring life to your brother'.
The physical law says 'Don't steal from your brother', the spiritual law says 'Give to your brother'. Etc.
The physical law was simply physical, carried out in the physical realm. The spiritual law is a matter of our heart, and carried out in both realms.
For instance, you can religiously, physically go out and feed the hungry. But God looks not at your action, but what's in your heart. If you feed the hungry all the while begrudging him, ridiculing him, hating him in your heart, you have wasted your effort.
The Jews were sacrificing, but their hearts were far from God. They were fulfilling the law outwardly, but inwardly, they were ravening wolves and whited sepulchers. That is what the new covenant changed.
We are still to feed the hungry, but the REASON we are doing it is the determining factor. Are we seeking the praise of men, or of God? Are we religiously going through the motions, or is our desire to show them the love of God?
The old covenant required the sacrificing of lambs. The one bringing the sacrifice would place his hands upon the head of the lamb to 'transfer' his sins to the lamb. The lamb is then sacrificed, in the place of he who brought it.
The new covenant requires the acceptance of the Lamb that was slain. The one accepting the Sacrifice in effect embraces the Lamb, and 'transfers' his sin to the Lamb. The Lamb was sacrificed in the place of we who accept His gift of death in our place.

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 07:47 PM
Eze 4:9-16
12 Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread." 13 Then the Lord said, "This is how Israel will eat defiled bread in the Gentile lands to which I will banish them!"
14 Then I said, "O Sovereign Lord, must I be defiled by using human dung? For I have never been defiled before. From the time I was a child until now I have never eaten any animal that died of sickness or was killed by other animals. I have never eaten any meat forbidden by the law."
15 "All right," the Lord said. "You may bake your bread with cow dung as fuel instead of human dung."
Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

If that does not answer the question for you, then :giveup: .


The NLT? Oh boy. Talk about adding to God's word! Please show me the Hebrew word in this passage which should be translated as "fuel". e

Also, roadwarrior, did you see my last post to you cocnerning the deleted thread? Peace

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:50 PM
Where does it say we are justified by fulfilling the law of Christ? We are not justified by our works, whether they be according to the old or new covenant. We are justified by faith in Christ. Period. But our works show our faith. Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.




Yes, you can. Because, as Jesus said, all the law and prophets hang upon the two, loving God and loving neighbor. And the OT law SAID to love God and love neighbor.
Only thing is, you cannot perfectly fulfill the law of God, be it through the old or the new covenant. You cannot perfectly fulfill the law of Christ either (which, since Christ IS God, is therefore the law of God). But THAT is the reason Christ came.

If you closely examine the 613 laws of the old covenant, you will find that each of them fits into one of two categories, either loving God, or loving neighbor.
The law written upon stone is the physical law. The law written upon our hearts is the spiritual law. The physical law said 'You shall not kill', the spiritual law says 'If you are even angry with your brother without a cause, you have already killed him in your heart'.
The physical law says 'Don't kill your brother'. The Spiritual law says 'Bring life to your brother'.
The physical law says 'Don't steal from your brother', the spiritual law says 'Give to your brother'. Etc.
The physical law was simply physical, carried out in the physical realm. The spiritual law is a matter of our heart, and carried out in both realms.
For instance, you can religiously, physically go out and feed the hungry. But God looks not at your action, but what's in your heart. If you feed the hungry all the while begrudging him, ridiculing him, hating him in your heart, you have wasted your effort.
The Jews were sacrificing, but their hearts were far from God. They were fulfilling the law outwardly, but inwardly, they were ravening wolves and whited sepulchers. That is what the new covenant changed.
We are still to feed the hungry, but the REASON we are doing it is the determining factor. Are we seeking the praise of men, or of God? Are we religiously going through the motions, or is our desire to show them the love of God?
The old covenant required the sacrificing of lambs. The one bringing the sacrifice would place his hands upon the head of the lamb to 'transfer' his sins to the lamb. The lamb is then sacrificed, in the place of he who brought it.
The new covenant requires the acceptance of the Lamb that was slain. The one accepting the Sacrifice in effect embraces the Lamb, and 'transfers' his sin to the Lamb. The Lamb was sacrificed in the place of we who accept His gift of death in our place.

So you do not have to keep anything else in the law of Moses as long as you love and show love to one another? This as we know fulfils the law of Christ, does the same apply to the law of Moses?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:54 PM
Where does it say we are justified by fulfilling the law of Christ? We are not justified by our works, whether they be according to the old or new covenant. We are justified by faith in Christ. Period. But our works show our faith. Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.




Yes, you can. Because, as Jesus said, all the law and prophets hang upon the two, loving God and loving neighbor. And the OT law SAID to love God and love neighbor.
Only thing is, you cannot perfectly fulfill the law of God, be it through the old or the new covenant. You cannot perfectly fulfill the law of Christ either (which, since Christ IS God, is therefore the law of God). But THAT is the reason Christ came.

If you closely examine the 613 laws of the old covenant, you will find that each of them fits into one of two categories, either loving God, or loving neighbor.
The law written upon stone is the physical law. The law written upon our hearts is the spiritual law. The physical law said 'You shall not kill', the spiritual law says 'If you are even angry with your brother without a cause, you have already killed him in your heart'.
The physical law says 'Don't kill your brother'. The Spiritual law says 'Bring life to your brother'.
The physical law says 'Don't steal from your brother', the spiritual law says 'Give to your brother'. Etc.
The physical law was simply physical, carried out in the physical realm. The spiritual law is a matter of our heart, and carried out in both realms.
For instance, you can religiously, physically go out and feed the hungry. But God looks not at your action, but what's in your heart. If you feed the hungry all the while begrudging him, ridiculing him, hating him in your heart, you have wasted your effort.
The Jews were sacrificing, but their hearts were far from God. They were fulfilling the law outwardly, but inwardly, they were ravening wolves and whited sepulchers. That is what the new covenant changed.
We are still to feed the hungry, but the REASON we are doing it is the determining factor. Are we seeking the praise of men, or of God? Are we religiously going through the motions, or is our desire to show them the love of God?
The old covenant required the sacrificing of lambs. The one bringing the sacrifice would place his hands upon the head of the lamb to 'transfer' his sins to the lamb. The lamb is then sacrificed, in the place of he who brought it.
The new covenant requires the acceptance of the Lamb that was slain. The one accepting the Sacrifice in effect embraces the Lamb, and 'transfers' his sin to the Lamb. The Lamb was sacrificed in the place of we who accept His gift of death in our place.

The first question has already been answered.

Heb 6:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

1 Thess 1:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=52&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

1 Cor 15:58 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=58) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Eph 4:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:58 PM
The NLT? Oh boy. Talk about adding to God's word! Please show me the Hebrew word in this passage which should be translated as "fuel". e

Also, roadwarrior, did you see my last post to you cocnerning the deleted thread? Peace

Is this what you are looking for?

Ezek 4:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=26&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

Firstfruits

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 07:59 PM
Yes, firstfruits.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 08:04 PM
Yes, firstfruits.

What do you think was the reason for God to say as he did?

Ezek 4:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=26&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 16th 2008, 08:10 PM
Well, yes, but that doesn't really answer my question, does it? It almost does, though. 'everything we do' = what? What do we do?
Is it enough to just SAY we love our neighbor? Or is it enough to just FEEL love in our hearts toward our neighbor? Or are we expected to DO something as well?

James 2:14-18 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The fact that we live by the principle of love and not the letter of the law means:

1) the way we approach ethics and morality starts with the right attitude / heart
2) we can only accomplish this by the work of love of God's Spirit within us.
3) this principle encompasses all situations and all scenario's (more than all the laws of the letter could ever do).


Another question: We are not saved by works. We all know this. Would you agree that that same principle applies to the law of Christ as well as the law of Moses? Will keeping the law of Christ save you? Or are you putting yourself under the law by keeping the law of Christ?The fundamental difference between the law of Christ and the law of Moses, is that the law of love is a all-inclusive principle, in the domain of freedom and spirit. The law of Moses was in the domain of the letter, and only a trainer to Christ (Gal 3:23-26) until Christ who is the end of the written law for those who believe. As Paul points out in Romans 5 through 7, the law of Moses is considered as the law of sin and death.

(explained in post # 746 on http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=135926&page=50 )

Rom 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

We are not under the law of the letter any more (Rom 6:15), which is the law of Moses, but under the law of faith and love: that is the law of the spirit / Spirit (Rom 8:2).


God is triune. God the Father and God the Son are one and the same God. Therefore the law of God and the law of Christ would be the same law, would it not?The fact that the command of love is called "Christ's law" does not mean it is only Christ's law, as if seperate from the other Persons. The same triune God established all covenants (marked by laws). It is not God that changed, the covenants has. The new covenant renders the old covenant of the letter obsolete, ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13).

RoadWarrior
Sep 16th 2008, 08:45 PM
Also, roadwarrior, did you see my last post to you cocnerning the deleted thread? Peace

You have been sent a message regarding the moved thread. It veered into a subject that did not fit in BC, but in World Religions. Please check your messages.

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 08:47 PM
roadwarrior,

I am unable to view any messages that I might have. Do I have insufficient privileges to do so?

Coptichristian
Sep 16th 2008, 08:49 PM
roadwarrior,

I don't mean to be a pest, but I can't find the world religions forum.

Kahtar
Sep 16th 2008, 09:13 PM
The fact that we live by the principle of love and not the letter of the law means:

1) the way we approach ethics and morality starts with the right attitude / heartYep

2) we can only accomplish this by the work of love of God's Spirit within us.Yep again

3) this principle encompasses all situations and all scenario's (more than all the laws of the letter could ever do).The 'letter' covered quite abit, but yes, I agree


The fundamental difference between the law of Christ and the law of Moses, is that the law of love is a all-inclusive principle, in the domain of freedom and spirit. The law of Moses was in the domain of the letter, and only a trainer to Christ (Gal 3:23-26) until Christ who is the end of the written law for those who believe.I basically agree with this, but only add that the letter still is a trainer to Christ. It was all given for our instruction in righteousness (not to make us righteous, but to point the way)

As Paul points out in Romans 5 through 7, the law of Moses is considered as the law of sin and death.Yes, and the reason it was such was because that was it's penalty. I would submit that it still is. Those who do not accept Christ will STILL be judged for their sin, and still pay the penalty of death themselves, instead of accepting the payment Christ made in our behalf.</p>

Rom 7:6 &quot;But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.&quot;Yes. We are now dead, crucified with Christ, and therefore the penalty of the law is already paid in our case. But now that that is true, how do we 'serve in spirit'? Is that service not carried out in the physical realm? Obviously it is, ie feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc. Serving the letter can be accomplished without 'heart'. Serving in spirit begins in the heart and is outwardly displayed. But that outward display looks no different than serving the letter. We no longer serve the letter of the law, but we serve the spirit of what? The law. Same law.


We are not under the law of the letter any more (Rom 6:15), which is the law of Moses, but under the law of faith and love: that is the law of the spirit / Spirit (Rom 8:2).Yeah. Actually it says we are under grace. Can you provide me a verse that says we are 'under' the law of Christ?


The fact that the command of love is called &quot;Christ's law&quot; does not mean it is only Christ's law, as if seperate from the other Persons. The same triune God established all covenants (marked by laws). It is not God that changed, the covenants has. The new covenant renders the old covenant of the letter obsolete, ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13).Absolutely. The covenant of Noah rendered the covenant of Adam obsolete, replaced it, etc. But yet, if you look at the two, you will see that Noah's looked just like Adam's, with a couple minor changes. Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree, whereas Noah was commanded not to eat blood. And with Noah, God added the whole 'blood for blood' thing. Otherwise they were exactly the same. So, while the new covenant of Noah replaced the old covenant of Adam, it was actually the same covenant renewed in Noah, with those additions and changes.

If you wanted to take the time to study it out, you would find that every one of the 613 laws of the old covenant of Moses appears also in the new covenant of Christ, but with some important changes, ie the whole spiritual thing, and the change in the priesthood. We are stilll a kingdom of priests, and we still have temple duties, but the temple now is us, and our High Priest does not die. The laws of sacrifice remain, but the One Sacrificed has changed, and the application of that Sacrifice to our lives has changed a good bit.

ProjectPeter
Sep 16th 2008, 09:14 PM
You haven't been here quite long enough. ;) Thirty days is the set time along with 40 post.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 06:38 AM
Yep
Yep again
The 'letter' covered quite abit, but yes, I agree

I basically agree with this, but only add that the letter still is a trainer to Christ. It was all given for our instruction in righteousness (not to make us righteous, but to point the way)
Yes, and the reason it was such was because that was it's penalty. I would submit that it still is. Those who do not accept Christ will STILL be judged for their sin, and still pay the penalty of death themselves, instead of accepting the payment Christ made in our behalf.</p>
Yes. We are now dead, crucified with Christ, and therefore the penalty of the law is already paid in our case. But now that that is true, how do we 'serve in spirit'? Is that service not carried out in the physical realm? Obviously it is, ie feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc. Serving the letter can be accomplished without 'heart'. Serving in spirit begins in the heart and is outwardly displayed. But that outward display looks no different than serving the letter. We no longer serve the letter of the law, but we serve the spirit of what? The law. Same law.

Yeah. Actually it says we are under grace. Can you provide me a verse that says we are 'under' the law of Christ?

Absolutely. The covenant of Noah rendered the covenant of Adam obsolete, replaced it, etc. But yet, if you look at the two, you will see that Noah's looked just like Adam's, with a couple minor changes. Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree, whereas Noah was commanded not to eat blood. And with Noah, God added the whole 'blood for blood' thing. Otherwise they were exactly the same. So, while the new covenant of Noah replaced the old covenant of Adam, it was actually the same covenant renewed in Noah, with those additions and changes.

If you wanted to take the time to study it out, you would find that every one of the 613 laws of the old covenant of Moses appears also in the new covenant of Christ, but with some important changes, ie the whole spiritual thing, and the change in the priesthood. We are stilll a kingdom of priests, and we still have temple duties, but the temple now is us, and our High Priest does not die. The laws of sacrifice remain, but the One Sacrificed has changed, and the application of that Sacrifice to our lives has changed a good bit.

Would you say that the difference between the law of Moses and the law of Christ is in the fulfilment?

To keep the law of Moses you must do all that is written in it as it is written.

To keep the law of Christ we must love on another, as it is love that shows that we are his, and it was because Israel had Gods law that they were his people.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 11:48 AM
Would you say that the difference between the law of Moses and the law of Christ is in the fulfilment? In a nutshell, yes.


To keep the law of Moses you must do all that is written in it as it is written.Basically. Except they were unable, and often unwilling, to keep it.


To keep the law of Christ we must love on another, as it is love that shows that we are his, and it was because Israel had Gods law that they were his people.Yes, but we also are unable to keep it. But that's why Christ came.
The law, neither the 'law of Moses' or the 'law of Christ' (of which I see little difference) is able to make one righteous. Christ did away with righteousness through the law. Now righteousness is obtained by faith in Christ and His righteousness.

But we are still commanded, by Jesus, and the Apostles, to be obedient to the law.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 John 2:3-5 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (5) But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.Revelation 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
So we keep the commandments because we love Him, and we trust in HIM for our righteousness, and not the commandments.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 12:04 PM
In a nutshell, yes.

Basically. Except they were unable, and often unwilling, to keep it.

Yes, but we also are unable to keep it. But that's why Christ came.
The law, neither the 'law of Moses' or the 'law of Christ' (of which I see little difference) is able to make one righteous. Christ did away with righteousness through the law. Now righteousness is obtained by faith in Christ and His righteousness.

But we are still commanded, by Jesus, and the Apostles, to be obedient to the law.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 John 2:3-5 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (5) But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.Revelation 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
So we keep the commandments because we love Him, and we trust in HIM for our righteousness, and not the commandments.

According to the New covenant this is what God has commanded.

1 Jn 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 Jn 3:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 Jn 3:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1 Jn 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

This is the law of Christ, the new covenant.

Firstfruits

Alaska
Sep 17th 2008, 12:32 PM
Rom 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Under grace does not mean we are not under a law.

1 Cor 9:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.
Hence the conflict the Jews had with Jesus and His believers.
So will Christians continue to be half OT Jew and half believer; half in bondage to the OT law and half under grace?
Take Christ's whole package along with the persecution of its rejection of some of the Torah as a binding law now, or wait until you are ready to do so.
Holding a compromised position of the two separate covenants is like plowing with an ass and an ox together.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 12:44 PM
Rom 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Under grace does not mean we are not under a law.

1 Cor 9:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.
Hence the conflict the Jews had with Jesus and His believers.
So will Christians continue to be half OT Jew and half believer; half in bondage to the OT law and half under grace?
Take Christ's whole package along with the persecution of its rejection of some of the Torah as a binding law now, or wait until you are ready to do so.
Holding a compromised position of the two separate covenants is like plowing with an ass and an ox together.

Paul was accused of heresy because of what he taught concerning Jesus, I do not think that has changed today.

Acts 24:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 17th 2008, 12:48 PM
Kahtar


Absolutely. The covenant of Noah rendered the covenant of Adam obsolete, replaced it, etc. But yet, if you look at the two, you will see that Noah's looked just like Adam's, with a couple minor changes. Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree, whereas Noah was commanded not to eat blood. And with Noah, God added the whole 'blood for blood' thing. Otherwise they were exactly the same. So, while the new covenant of Noah replaced the old covenant of Adam, it was actually the same covenant renewed in Noah, with those additions and changes.

If you wanted to take the time to study it out, you would find that every one of the 613 laws of the old covenant of Moses appears also in the new covenant of Christ, but with some important changes, ie the whole spiritual thing, and the change in the priesthood. We are stilll a kingdom of priests, and we still have temple duties, but the temple now is us, and our High Priest does not die. The laws of sacrifice remain, but the One Sacrificed has changed, and the application of that Sacrifice to our lives has changed a good bit.Since the command of love fulfills all of the law, meaning each and every law, we are not under the law at all. So, you are completely right that the term "under the law of love" does not occur in the New Testament. We are under grace. In that I understand that in being under His grace (and walking through it) and not under the law, we fulfill the command of love (His Spirit does that in us), we fulfill the underlying principles of all morality and ethics, for in essence they are eternal and connected to God's character.

If e.g. adultery, idolatry, murder was a sin in the old covenant, it still is in the New Testament, because it directly violates the command of love. The principle stays the same. But many of the laws was for physical Israel only, although it was in many instances a shadow of what was to come, e.g. it was compulsory in the Old Testament to be circumcised. And yet circumcision has been fulfilled in Christ, for He circumcises the heart, and His death was the fulfillment of circumcision (Col 2:11-13). In the same way, the physical sabbath day was for physical Israel only. In the New Testament, all physical days are equal (Rom 14; Col 3). And yet we entered into the eternal rest, which is Christ Himself (Heb 4) of which the physical Sabbath-day was merely a shadow of, together with all the Old Testament feasts (Col 3). So in this sense, the principle of rest has been fulfilled in Christ Himself. In the same way, as you have suggested, all the Old Testament laws have been fulfilled in the New Testament.

But fulfillment does not always mean that every single OT commandment has an equivalent or a type of "spiritual counter-principle" in the NT. Some of them were just good medical, hygienic practice: e.g. touching a corpse, eating pork, eating ostridge, washing your hands, etc. They simply are not applicable for New Testament Christians.

So, I would say that if we want to know how to live according to the law of Christ (the law of love), we only need to:

1) be guided and lead by the Spirit Himself, and
2) be instructed on the basis of the New Testament / New Covenant on how to practically do this (never apart from point 1)

The New Testament does not distinguish between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law (theme of this thread), so we are free from all laws. Therefore, I do not personally know all the Old Testament laws, and not even everything which is right to do in the New Testament (although I try to), but I do know the principle of love, since God Has revealed His love to me personally, and I do know the grace and love of His Spirit by heart. And as I understand it, THAT is all I really need to know, for I am not under the law.

Thanks for your insights and a meaningful discussion.
Many blessings
Philip

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 12:55 PM
Kahtar

Since the command of love fulfills all of the law, meaning each and every law, we are not under the law at all. So, you are completely right that the term "under the law of love" does not occur in the New Testament. We are under grace. In that I understand that in being under His grace (and walking through it) and not under the law, we fulfill the command of love (His Spirit does that in us), we fulfill the underlying principles of all morality and ethics, for in essence they are eternal and connected to God's character.

If e.g. adultery, idolatry, murder was a sin in the old covenant, it still is in the New Testament, because it directly violates the command of love. The principle stays the same. But many of the laws was for physical Israel only, although it was in many instances a shadow of what was to come, e.g. it was compulsory in the Old Testament to be circumcised. And yet circumcision has been fulfilled in Christ, for He circumcises the heart, and His death was the fulfillment of circumcision (Col 2:11-13). In the same way, the physical sabbath day was for physical Israel only. In the New Testament, all physical days are equal (Rom 14; Col 3). And yet we entered into the eternal rest, which is Christ Himself (Heb 4) of which the physical Sabbath-day was merely a shadow of, together with all the Old Testament feasts (Col 3). So in this sense, the principle of rest has been fulfilled in Christ Himself. In the same way, as you have suggested, all the Old Testament laws has been fulfilled in the New Testament.

But fulfillment does not always mean that every single OT commandment has an equivalent or a type of "spiritual counter-principle" in the NT. Some of them were just good medical, hygienic practice practice: e.g. touching a corpse, eating pork, eating ostridge, washing your hands, etc. They simply are not applicable for New Testament Christians.

So, I would say that if we want to know how to live according to the law of Christ (the law of love), we only need to:

1) be guided and lead by the Spirit Himself, and
2) be instructed on the basis of the New Testament / New Covenant on how to practically do this (never apart from point 1)

The New Testament does not distinguish between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law (theme of this thread). Therefore, I do not personally know all the Old Testament laws, and not even everything which is right to do in the New Testament (although I try to), but I do know the principle of love, since God Has revealed His love to me personally, and I do know the grace and love of His Spirit by heart. And as I understand it, THAT is all I really need to know, for I am not under the law.

Thanks for your insights and a meaningful discussion.
Many blessings
Philip

Thanks Philip,

I am sure you know the following but they are the guideline we have been given.

God bless you.

Rom 13:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 01:16 PM
Phillip, I think we see things very much the same.
You are right of course about the 'specific to Israel' laws. And the dietary laws just make good sense. Many of the judicial laws our country has adopted anyway. Not the stoning of course. :DAs far as the law that pertain to priests and the temple go, I did an indepth study of that, and found that, because we are now a kingdom of priests, and the temple, all those things apply to us (except those things pertaining to the High Priest), but in a spiritual manner.
Ultimately, the Spirit writes the law on our hearts, which simply means that He places within our heart the desire to obey them. Thus, we walk in obedience to the laws alot of times without even knowing we are doing so. And what is not written in our heart, I don't think we need to concern ourselves with. That's not to say that at some point He won't put it there.
For example, I used to worship on Sundays only, and felt no need to worship on Saturdays. But I love God, and I am learning to trust His judgment, and His way, over my own, and now I often do so on Saturday as well, not because it is 'in the law' which I am not under, but simply because it's the day HE chose, and I desire to honor Him. Does that make sense?

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 01:22 PM
Under grace does not mean we are not under a law.What is your understanding of 'being under' the law? What does 'being under' mean to you?


Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.Can you provide a couple examples?

So will Christians continue to be half OT Jew and half believer; half in bondage to the OT law and half under grace?Do you believe being obedient to the law puts you 'under the law'? Or do you think it is possible to be obedient to the law without trying to be justified by it?

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 01:40 PM
Phillip, I think we see things very much the same.
You are right of course about the 'specific to Israel' laws. And the dietary laws just make good sense. Many of the judicial laws our country has adopted anyway. Not the stoning of course. :DAs far as the law that pertain to priests and the temple go, I did an indepth study of that, and found that, because we are now a kingdom of priests, and the temple, all those things apply to us (except those things pertaining to the High Priest), but in a spiritual manner.
Ultimately, the Spirit writes the law on our hearts, which simply means that He places within our heart the desire to obey them. Thus, we walk in obedience to the laws alot of times without even knowing we are doing so. And what is not written in our heart, I don't think we need to concern ourselves with. That's not to say that at some point He won't put it there.
For example, I used to worship on Sundays only, and felt no need to worship on Saturdays. But I love God, and I am learning to trust His judgment, and His way, over my own, and now I often do so on Saturday as well, not because it is 'in the law' which I am not under, but simply because it's the day HE chose, and I desire to honor Him. Does that make sense?

Why not go the whole way and worship God every day? (which I am sure you do).

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 01:48 PM
Why not go the whole way and worship God every day? (which I am sure you do).

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits


:D Yes, I do. And that presented a bit of a problem. How do I make either Saturday or Sunday special and different than the other days? Not that I have to, but I wanted to.

joztok
Sep 17th 2008, 01:51 PM
I would love to meet the person who can obey all the law. I've never met an absolutely perfect, totally sinless person before.

You have met with a person who can and still does obey all the Law; the one who wrote it is the same one who did away with it! That's Christ in you. And if Christ is in you, guess how the God the Father sees you?

Perfect, righteous and SINLESS.
And you know this. You have Christ's nature. You hate sin and wickedness. And when you do fall into temptation you hate the sin committed because you know it is not you anymore. You are SINLESS in Christ. It is no longer on you or a part of you. It is Christ in you! Hear the words of John the Baptist:

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

How can we be sinners if our sins are taken away?

I have found this thread insightful and comical. Love you all and your comments. It's true though. God would have kept talking through all 613 commandments unless Israel prevented him.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 02:05 PM
:D Yes, I do. And that presented a bit of a problem. How do I make either Saturday or Sunday special and different than the other days? Not that I have to, but I wanted to.

God is special everyday, as long as you give him that which is accceptable to him, then that is your reasonble service.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 03:55 PM
God is special everyday, as long as you give him that which is accceptable to him, then that is your reasonble service.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

That doesn't change the day God set apart as Holy.

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 03:58 PM
God is special everyday, as long as you give him that which is accceptable to him, then that is your reasonble service.

God bless you.

Firstfruits


So your argument is that before Y'shua God was special only on Sabbath?

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 03:59 PM
Rom 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Under grace does not mean we are not under a law.

1 Cor 9:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.
Hence the conflict the Jews had with Jesus and His believers.
So will Christians continue to be half OT Jew and half believer; half in bondage to the OT law and half under grace?
Take Christ's whole package along with the persecution of its rejection of some of the Torah as a binding law now, or wait until you are ready to do so.
Holding a compromised position of the two separate covenants is like plowing with an ass and an ox together.


Not true. Messiah's conflict with some sects of Pharisees and Saduccees had to do with men's traditions, not the Torah HE WROTE. God isn't going to disobey His own Word.

The compromise is with those who discard God's commandments, set apart Holy days and replace them with their pagan traditions. The ox and the ass is paganism mixed with God's Word, not God's Word mixed with God's Word.

Today. men's traditions still abound.

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 04:02 PM
Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.
Hence the conflict the Jews had with Jesus and His believers.

So you are saying that if a Word from God you hear contradicts the bile as we know it, then you are to follow the new revelation.

If "christ's law" contradicts the OT law then should they not have been correctly put to death for violating the Word of God?

Philip dT
Sep 17th 2008, 04:44 PM
Phillip, I think we see things very much the same.
You are right of course about the 'specific to Israel' laws. And the dietary laws just make good sense. Many of the judicial laws our country has adopted anyway. Not the stoning of course. :DAs far as the law that pertain to priests and the temple go, I did an indepth study of that, and found that, because we are now a kingdom of priests, and the temple, all those things apply to us (except those things pertaining to the High Priest), but in a spiritual manner.
Ultimately, the Spirit writes the law on our hearts, which simply means that He places within our heart the desire to obey them. Thus, we walk in obedience to the laws alot of times without even knowing we are doing so. And what is not written in our heart, I don't think we need to concern ourselves with. That's not to say that at some point He won't put it there.
For example, I used to worship on Sundays only, and felt no need to worship on Saturdays. But I love God, and I am learning to trust His judgment, and His way, over my own, and now I often do so on Saturday as well, not because it is 'in the law' which I am not under, but simply because it's the day HE chose, and I desire to honor Him. Does that make sense?

Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate your attitude, and I do try to make room for others who understand the Word differently than myself. To me personally, I do not understand that there is any specific day we ought to worship. I understand that today has come in the place of a day (according to Heb 4) and that entering into His rest is not connected to a day any more. I can enter into rest and worship any day, in fact, we ought to live a life of worship. In that sense I am in eternal rest and in a relationship of worship every moment of the day, since I do not live any more but Christ lives in me. That reality is now true in me, of which the physical sabbath-day was only a shadow of. And yet His Spirit puts a yearning in my heart to enter into active worship continually. And yes, sometimes I need to make time to actively worship, but I do not think we ought to do that on a specific day of the week. To my mind, how I understand worship is also connected to how I understand church. I am part of the church every moment of the day. We do not ought to "do" church or "go to" church, we are the church.

Does that make sense?

Philip

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 05:07 PM
Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate your attitude, and I do try to make room for others who understand the Word differently than myself. To me personally, I do not understand that there is any specific day we ought to worship. I understand that today has come in the place of a day (according to Heb 4) and that entering into His rest is not connected to a day any more. I can enter into rest and worship any day, in fact, we ought to live a life of worship. In that sense I am in eternal rest and in a relationship of worship every moment of the day, since I do not live any more but Christ lives in me. That reality is now true in me, of which the physical sabbath-day was only a shadow of. And yet His Spirit puts a yearning in my heart to enter into active worship continually. And yes, sometimes I need to make time to actively worship, but I do not think we ought to do that on a specific day of the week. To my mind, how I understand worship is also connected to how I understand church. I am part of the church every moment of the day. We do not ought to &quot;do&quot; church or &quot;go to&quot; church, we are the church.

Does that make sense?

Yes that does make sense, and I agree. Doesn't take away from the need to gather together, however. We should still 'go' to church to do that, and to worship Him together.

And by the way, I greatly appreciate your attitude and willingness to civilly discuss the topic as well. :)

Philip dT
Sep 17th 2008, 05:08 PM
Thanks Philip,

I am sure you know the following but they are the guideline we have been given.

God bless you.

Rom 13:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Firstfruits

Yes, thanks for this scripture. To me, "and if there be any other commandment" is significant. That would include the sabbath. Even the sabbath is fulfilled in love. How? He loves me, and through His love I love Him. The way in which His love has become perfect in me, is that through rebirth and His work in me, I have become a partaker of the eternal rest in Christ: I am in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20).

1 John 4:16-17 "And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. (17) In this is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, that as He is, so also we are in this world."

See also my previous post to Kahtar.

Blessings!

Philip dT
Sep 17th 2008, 05:19 PM
Yes that does make sense, and I agree. Doesn't take away from the need to gather together, however. We should still 'go' to church to do that, and to worship Him together.

And by the way, I greatly appreciate your attitude and willingness to civilly discuss the topic as well. :)

Sure! Sometimes, Tuesday evenings' home-church is more "church" than Sunday / Saturday morning gatherings though, if you understand what I mean...

Kahtar
Sep 17th 2008, 05:27 PM
Sure! Sometimes, Tuesday evenings' home-church is more &quot;church&quot; than Sunday / Saturday morning gatherings though, if you understand what I mean...

Uh, yep. Sure do, unfortunately........ :)

drew
Sep 17th 2008, 05:29 PM
Christ's law is different from the OT law. In numerous points it directly contradicts the OT law.
Hence the conflict the Jews had with Jesus and His believers.
So will Christians continue to be half OT Jew and half believer; half in bondage to the OT law and half under grace?
Take Christ's whole package along with the persecution of its rejection of some of the Torah as a binding law now, or wait until you are ready to do so.
Holding a compromised position of the two separate covenants is like plowing with an ass and an ox together.
I do not agree with this. There are not two separate covenants - its all one covenant. Granted, the work of Jesus renews and fulfills the covenant. And I hold the position that the Torah, at least understood as a set of 613 "rules" has been retired. So I am not saying things have not changed. But I see no evidence of Christ's teaching any "modifications" to the moral framework that undergirds Torah.

I grant this is a complex issue, since it is clear that Paul makes claims about the Torah being abolished:

For 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.

And yet he also makes claim about the Torah being affirmed:

31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Perhaps I misunderstand you but when you talk about two separate covenants, I take you as saying that God was doing one thing with Israel and something else with Jesus. Perhaps that is not what you mean.

But in any event, I think the Bible clearly shows one fundamental plan. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the climax of the Abrahamic covenant.

drew
Sep 17th 2008, 05:38 PM
Not true. Messiah's conflict with some sects of Pharisees and Saduccees had to do with men's traditions, not the Torah HE WROTE. God isn't going to disobey His own Word.
Given my disagreement with Alaska's position, you might be surprised that I will disagree with what you write here.

I will take a position on this that I suspect everyone will reject - Jesus intentionally breaks the Sabbath Law to signal God's intention to abolish Torah. So I am claiming that Jesus is indeed "violating" God's Law here. But, lest ye cry blasphemy, I am with Paul here. Paul clearly states in Ephesians 2 that there is at least a sense in which the Torah has indeed been abolished. And who did that? God, obviously, did that.

I will claim that Jesus did other things that "broke" Torah: He associated with corpses, etc. I also will claim that when Jesus overthrew the stalls of the people in the temple, He was symbolically enacting the destruction of the temple.

And we know why He did this. He did this to symbollicaly presage the real temple that would be the dwelling place of God - the human body as filled with the Holy Spirit.

I realize that some will be taken aback by this line of thinking - I am indeed claiming that Jesus "breaks" Torah at several point. But, if we believe that He is God, and if we take Paul seriously, we have to acknowledge that the Torah - at least in some sense - has been abolished. And so if God has abolished Torah, it makes sense that Jesus would enact this in His earthly ministry.

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 06:20 PM
Given my disagreement with Alaska's position, you might be surprised that I will disagree with what you write here.

I will take a position on this that I suspect everyone will reject - Jesus intentionally breaks the Sabbath Law to signal God's intention to abolish Torah. So I am claiming that Jesus is indeed "violating" God's Law here. But, lest ye cry blasphemy, I am with Paul here. Paul clearly states in Ephesians 2 that there is at least a sense in which the Torah has indeed been abolished. And who did that? God, obviously, did that.

First point, I would not accuse anyone personally of blastphemy regarding this issue, however any statement that the Shabbat has anything to do with rest from sin certainly is. I hop you get my drift here, because I have heard this teaching before and it's not Scriptually sound. My rest in Jesus is exactly a 24/7 rest in freedom from the bondage of "Egypt". But that has nothing to do with the day God decided to declare Holy and set apart. I also disagree Jesus broke Shabbat as given in Torah. Centurys before Jesus, this issue was already a raging argument between different Pharisitical sects. Hillel taught it was righteous for healing and helping your neighbor in trouble on Shabbat, because 'love your neighor' is a greater command with Shabbat as a subset within that command. Of course I don't embrace Hillel's teaching, I embrace God's teachings, which of course includes Jesus. Jesus never, ever taught His Torah was 'obsolete'. If Paul seems to contradict GOD HIMSELF (the teachings of Jesus), then either Paul was wrong or he is being misinterpreted. I don't think Paul was wrong, so I assert he was misinterpreted. In fact many words are added to his writings (shaded) that expose the Platoism that permeated the Greek minds of the interpreters.

What Jesus correctly taught was the intent of Torah, which the Jews missed. But even though we disagree, we have no room to judge each other. Please don't mis-understand my Zeal for the LORD with self-righteousness or judgement. Nothing I do out respect or love for my LORD is outside of my relationship with Him and Him only.


I will claim that Jesus did other things that "broke" Torah: He associated with corpses, etc. I also will claim that when Jesus overthrew the stalls of the people in the temple, He was symbolically enacting the destruction of the temple.

Yeshua was not a Levite, therefore he broke no ritual cleanliness requirements - furthermore, you're missing HIS greater Torah command of Love your Brother. From your comments, it seems you're missing the intent of Torah as badly as the Pharisees did. (no offence)


And we know why He did this. He did this to symbollicaly presage the real temple that would be the dwelling place of God - the human body as filled with the Holy Spirit.

Agree, but that didn't break His own commands.


I realize that some will be taken aback by this line of thinking - I am indeed claiming that Jesus "breaks" Torah at several point. But, if we believe that He is God, and if we take Paul seriously, we have to acknowledge that the Torah - at least in some sense - has been abolished. And so if God has abolished Torah, it makes sense that Jesus would enact this in His earthly ministry.

If Jesus breaks Torah, by His own definition (He's God) He's a sinner and His blood doesn't cover your sins. My LORD is withour sin. Period.

Philip dT
Sep 17th 2008, 06:25 PM
Drew


I am indeed claiming that Jesus "breaks" Torah at several point.Correct:

Joh 5:18 "Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God."

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 06:34 PM
Correct:

Joh 5:18 "Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God."

Out of context. He was breaking Sabbath according to men's traditions specifically in the tradition of rabbi Shammai. The sect that followed rabbi Hillel would have no problem with His healings. If you can't see this you're trapped behind a veil, like the Pharisees, in the traditions of men.

This is clarified in later verses by the greater commandment of healing and giving the afflicted rest from the labor of their afflictions, and this is an intent of Torah (the 2nd greatest commandment).

drew
Sep 17th 2008, 06:34 PM
If Jesus breaks Torah, by His own definition (He's God) He's a sinner and His blood doesn't cover your sins. My LORD is withour sin. Period.
But then how do you make sense of what Paul says in Ephesians 2 about abolishing the Law? Consider the following argument:

1. Paul says the Law is abolished in Ephesians 2;

2. Now while we may disagree over exactly what this means, it certainly must mean that there is at least some rule "X" that has been abolished. Let's say that rule is "Thou shalt not do A".

3. Let's say that X is abolished at time = t1.

4. Fred does A at some time after t1.

5. Fred has not sinned, since he did A after the time that X was abolished.

Now lets transpose this back into Jesus situation. Let's suppose that, for example, the "working on the Sabbath" law was abolished before Jesus did the thing in the wheat fields. Jesus is indeed breaking this aw, but is not sinning since this law has already been abolished.

You seem to be arguing that if Jesus breaks the Torah, He must be committing sin. But this cannot be true in respect to those elements of the Torah that have already been abolished at the time Jesus performs the "law-breaking" action.

So there really in no problem in asserting that Jesus breaks a particular rule of Torah, if a case can be made that the rule in question has already been abolished when Jesus "breaks" it.

Ethnikos
Sep 17th 2008, 06:35 PM
Given my disagreement with Alaska's position, you might be surprised that I will disagree with what you write here.

I will take a position on this that I suspect everyone will reject - Jesus intentionally breaks the Sabbath Law to signal God's intention to abolish Torah. So I am claiming that Jesus is indeed "violating" God's Law here. But, lest ye cry blasphemy, I am with Paul here. Paul clearly states in Ephesians 2 that there is at least a sense in which the Torah has indeed been abolished. And who did that? God, obviously, did that.

I will claim that Jesus did other things that "broke" Torah: He associated with corpses, etc. I also will claim that when Jesus overthrew the stalls of the people in the temple, He was symbolically enacting the destruction of the temple.

And we know why He did this. He did this to symbollicaly presage the real temple that would be the dwelling place of God - the human body as filled with the Holy Spirit.

I realize that some will be taken aback by this line of thinking - I am indeed claiming that Jesus "breaks" Torah at several point. But, if we believe that He is God, and if we take Paul seriously, we have to acknowledge that the Torah - at least in some sense - has been abolished. And so if God has abolished Torah, it makes sense that Jesus would enact this in His earthly ministry.
Let's take a look at what you present as evidence to Jesus destroying the Torah:

13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
17AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Paul is talking about people who were being restrained from becoming Christians because they were not circumcised. He is saying that the thing that is separating us from Christ, being gentiles, has been broken down.
Let's look at the wording and see if we can understand what they mean. He says there is a law inside the ordinances, that was calling for a separation and an exclusion.
Now let's look at the context. Paul speaks of something done with human hands and that is the actual act of performing the ritual. He speaks, then, of an act that is performed by a divine act and that was the putting to death of the flesh and that is sin brought about by the activity of following lustful impulses.
So we do not see the whole Law being done away with but a particular law that is part of the Jewish ordinances, meaning the ritualistic part of the Torah.
To say that Jesus on purpose broke the Law is blasphemy, of the highest order.

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 06:43 PM
But then how do you make sense of what Paul says in Ephesians 2 about abolishing the Law? Consider the following argument:

1. Paul says the Law is abolished in Ephesians 2;

2. Now while we may disagree over exactly what this means, it certainly must mean that there is at least some rule "X" that has been abolished. Let's say that rule is "Thou shalt not do A".

3. Let's say that X is abolished at time = t1.

4. Fred does A at some time after t1.

5. Fred has not sinned, since he did A after the time that X was abolished.

Now lets transpose this back into Jesus situation. Let's suppose that, for example, the "working on the Sabbath" law was abolished before Jesus did the thing in the wheat fields. Jesus is indeed breaking this aw, but is not sinning since this law has already been abolished.

You seem to be arguing that if Jesus breaks the Torah, He must be committing sin. But this cannot be true in respect to those elements of the Torah that have already been abolished at the time Jesus performs the "law-breaking" action.

So there really in no problem in asserting that Jesus breaks a particular rule of Torah, if a case can be made that the rule in question has already been abolished when Jesus "breaks" it.

Your argument holds no water, because, frankly,

Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Look up. Look down.

We have a choice. Reason with the serpent or listen to God.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 06:51 PM
Your argument holds no water, because, frankly,

Mat 5:18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Look up. Look down.

We have a choice. Reason with the serpent or listen to God.


With the understanding that God has said that the New covnenant is not according to the previous one how does that apply to what you have said.

Both the first and the second have been in our hearts, so what therefore has changed?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 06:52 PM
We've changed. :)

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 07:00 PM
So your argument is that before Y'shua God was special only on Sabbath?

Wether it is the Sabbath or not we do not worship, praise, give him thanks any less than any other day, if those that choose to worship God with others will God accept is less if it is not done on the Sabbath?

I cannot tell wrther or not someone that worships on the Sabbath thinks that God is only to be worshiped on the Sabbath because of Gods law that he gave to Israel, but I have no problem whenever I worship God, and whatever day of the week or every day, it does not matter,. If it matters, then we are saying it is wrong to do otherwise.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 07:02 PM
We've changed. :)

God said it was the covenant that was different, so why then do you say we have changed?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 07:12 PM
Wether it is the Sabbath or not we do not worship, praise, give him thanks any less than any other day, if those that choose to worship God with others will God accept is less if it is not done on the Sabbath?

I cannot tell wrther or not someone that worships on the Sabbath thinks that God is only to be worshiped on the Sabbath because of Gods law that he gave to Israel, but I have no problem whenever I worship God, and whatever day of the week or every day, it does not matter,. If it matters, then we are saying it is wrong to do otherwise.

Firstfruits

Your reasoning is flawed. No one here said Shabbat is the ONLY day for the worship of God. You're inserting false dictums.

Why depend on man's reasoning instead of God's truth? Which is more profitable?

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 07:13 PM
God said it was the covenant that was different, so why then do you say we have changed?

Firstfruits

I don't see the word 'different' in the Scriptures. Please point it out.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 07:34 PM
Your reasoning is flawed. No one here said Shabbat is the ONLY day for the worship of God. You're inserting false dictums.

Why depend on man's reasoning instead of God's truth? Which is more profitable?

I hear what you are saying, however all I am saying is that I have no problem worshiping God whatever day it is and it does not have to be the Sabbath. I know what God has commanded in the Law of Moses and I know that If we were under it then Paul would not have said this;

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 07:38 PM
I don't see the word 'different' in the Scriptures. Please point it out.

God said that the first covenant was not according to the second, does that mean it is the same or that it changed?

Heb 8:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 07:45 PM
Wether it is the Sabbath or not we do not worship, praise, give him thanks any less than any other day, if those that choose to worship God with others will God accept is less if it is not done on the Sabbath?

I cannot tell wrther or not someone that worships on the Sabbath thinks that God is only to be worshiped on the Sabbath because of Gods law that he gave to Israel, but I have no problem whenever I worship God, and whatever day of the week or every day, it does not matter,. If it matters, then we are saying it is wrong to do otherwise.

Firstfruits


What do you mean by worship? I cannot find a connection between Sabbath and worship in the scriptures.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 07:59 PM
What do you mean by worship? I cannot find a connection between Sabbath and worship in the scriptures.

If you have been working all week, at the end of the week do you not look forwards to your rest and are yuou not thankful to God for your rest, do you not go to fellowship with others and worship and praise God for all he has done for you, that is worship.

Firstfruits

Ethnikos
Sep 17th 2008, 08:05 PM
Wether it is the Sabbath or not we do not worship, praise, give him thanks any less than any other day, if those that choose to worship God with others will God accept is less if it is not done on the Sabbath?

I cannot tell wrther or not someone that worships on the Sabbath thinks that God is only to be worshiped on the Sabbath because of Gods law that he gave to Israel, but I have no problem whenever I worship God, and whatever day of the week or every day, it does not matter,. If it matters, then we are saying it is wrong to do otherwise.

Firstfruits
I said before, on this forum that I went to the local Temple for three years. There was a service on Friday night and one Saturday morning. They were different and let me try to explain it. The thing in the morning was a minion. If this was in a city and had a big Jewish community, it would be a daily occurrence but in a small town, it happens on the Sabbath because that is when they can have a minion. A minion is a term to describe a number of people gathered together to hear the Torah reading and the blessings given to God that are congregational, if you can understand that.
On Friday, the service is something else in that it is a reenactment of something that would happen in the home, to usher in the Sabbath. The Rabbi said that in reality, it should be done at home. A woman would get up and light a candle. The law says not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, so the woman of the house would light a candle right before sundown and that fire would be the only fire used until the sun went down the next day. They would start fires for whatever use, off that one flame.
If you go back to the manna miracle in the wilderness, you see that the people were to not go out, but to stay home on the Seventh day.
So, as far as I am concerned, people can stay home on the seventh day and go to church on the first day. I have done that and would do it now if I was so inclined. If you want to commemorate Christ rising from the dead on Sunday morning, do whatever you feel is right. I do not think it is my job to tell people what to do.

drew
Sep 17th 2008, 08:29 PM
Your argument holds no water, because, frankly,

Mat 5:18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Look up. Look down.

We have a choice. Reason with the serpent or listen to God.

Well now that you YELL your position, it makes a lot more sense.

Please show me the respect that I am showing to you and do not suggest that I am colluding with Satan.

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 08:34 PM
If you have been working all week, at the end of the week do you not look forwards to your rest and are yuou not thankful to God for your rest, do you not go to fellowship with others and worship and praise God for all he has done for you, that is worship.

Firstfruits


Worship is obedience, not singing emotional songs. Worship is a full time blessing. I study Scripture on Sabbath. I rest with my family on Sabbath. I am thankful for His rest on Sabbath.

drew
Sep 17th 2008, 08:36 PM
Things are not simple here. True, Jesus says this:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Yet Paul also says, and he is talking about the Torah here - not man's distortion of it.

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.

There is a sense in which Torah has been done away with. And it is therefore entirely reasonable to assert that, in the course of His ministry, Jesus performed actions which, in "violating" the Torah, symbollized his right, as God incarnate, to abolish the Torah (in the sense in which it has indeed been abolished).

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 08:49 PM
Well now that you YELL your position, it makes a lot more sense.

Please show me the respect that I am showing to you and do not suggest that I am colluding with Satan.

No, yelling would be ALL CAPS. I don't disrespect you. Anyway, all of us succumb to satan's lies, myself included. It's nothing to be ashamed of. The Truth sets all of us free.

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 08:57 PM
Things are not simple here. True, Jesus says this:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Yet Paul also says, and he is talking about the Torah here - not man's distortion of it.

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.

There is a sense in which Torah has been done away with. And it is therefore entirely reasonable to assert that, in the course of His ministry, Jesus performed actions which, in "violating" the Torah, symbollized his right, as God incarnate, to abolish the Torah (in the sense in which it has indeed been abolished).

Turning to the metaphysical does not help your assertion. What's been changed is our shadow-caster, Yeshua has come and taken all authority of Torah. We are no longer governed by the words outside of us, but by the Living D'var (Word) within us. The Word hasn't changed, but the deliverer and keeper of God's oracles has. And I say Baruch HaShem haba Adonai to that!

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 03:17 AM
Turning to the metaphysical does not help your assertion. What's been changed is our shadow-caster, Yeshua has come and taken all authority of Torah. We are no longer governed by the words outside of us, but by the Living D'var (Word) within us. The Word hasn't changed, but the deliverer and keeper of God's oracles has. And I say Baruch HaShem haba Adonai to that!

What of the scripture, keck, that drew shared? Surely that isn't what you consider metaphysical. I have moved it over:


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.I agree with you in that the Word hasn't changed, He's been around eternally, and the Spirit lives within us. I also agree that the deliverer of God's oracles has changed.

How is Christ the shadow?

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 03:19 AM
No, yelling would be ALL CAPS. I don't disrespect you. Anyway, all of us succumb to satan's lies, myself included. It's nothing to be ashamed of. The Truth sets all of us free.

If the truth sets us free, then why would we be in any sort of bondage? :hmm:

drew
Sep 18th 2008, 03:24 AM
Turning to the metaphysical does not help your assertion.
As another poster has pointed out, you have not really addressed the Ephesians 2 text where Paul clearly says that the Torah - the law - has been abolished. There are other arguments as to why we should understand Paul as asserting that Torah has been abolished - at least in some sense. But the following text says what it says:

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.

Paul is clearly talking about the Torah here. And he is talking about it specifically in its role of marking out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. So, at the very least, those aspects of the Torah that mark the Jew from the Gentile - circumcision, Sabbath, and purity laws - have been abolished.

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:41 AM
Worship is obedience, not singing emotional songs. Worship is a full time blessing. I study Scripture on Sabbath. I rest with my family on Sabbath. I am thankful for His rest on Sabbath.

I have found that being on this forum I study daily the word of God, and I am daily thankful to God and I know he daily blesses me.

Are we different in Gods eyes because what you do on the Sabbath I do daily?

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 18th 2008, 07:20 AM
Out of context. He was breaking Sabbath according to men's traditions specifically in the tradition of rabbi Shammai. The sect that followed rabbi Hillel would have no problem with His healings. If you can't see this you're trapped behind a veil, like the Pharisees, in the traditions of men.

This is clarified in later verses by the greater commandment of healing and giving the afflicted rest from the labor of their afflictions, and this is an intent of Torah (the 2nd greatest commandment).

That is not correct:

Joh 5:15-19 "The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole. (16) And therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the sabbath day. (17) But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work. (18) Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God. (19) Then Jesus answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. For whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise."

Note that this is the author John's commentary. The breaking of the sabbath is named on the same level as the fact that He said that God was His father. Both are true.

drew
Sep 18th 2008, 02:30 PM
I know that for many people, the very notion that Jesus would "break" Torah seems blasphemous since it suggests that Jesus has sinned.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We know from Paul that there is a sense in which the Torah has been abolished. This is not based solely on Ephesians 2. I will, with some trepidation put forward this from Romans 7:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

In broader terms, an argument can be raised for the abolition of Torah based specifically on its powerful role in setting the Jew apart as distinct from the Gentile. Presumably we all agree that Paul makes it clear that "there is now no distinction" between Jew and Gentile. The way this is accomplished is, as per Ephesians 2, through the abolition of those elements of the Torah that set the Jew apart as distinctive - things like circumcision, Sabbath, and the kosher food laws.

There are lots of other texts and reasons to believe that the Torah, as a set of practices that marked out Jew from Gentile, has been "retired with honour".

If one agrees that Torah has, in one sense anyway, been abolished, then it is entirely reasonable, in fact to be expected, that Jesus would undertake certain actions to symbollically enact that abolition.

So He indeed does break the Torah: he has contact with corpses, contact with menstruating women, and with lepers. I believe that these are all violations of the Torah. Not to mention the debated Sabbath breaking we see in Matthew 12.

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 02:45 PM
I know that for many people, the very notion that Jesus would "break" Torah seems blasphemous since it suggests that Jesus has sinned.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We know from Paul that there is a sense in which the Torah has been abolished. This is not based solely on Ephesians 2. I will, with some trepidation put forward this from Romans 7:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

In broader terms, an argument can be raised for the abolition of Torah based specifically on its powerful role in setting the Jew apart as distinct from the Gentile. Presumably we all agree that Paul makes it clear that "there is now no distinction" between Jew and Gentile. The way this is accomplished is, as per Ephesians 2, through the abolition of those elements of the Torah that set the Jew apart as distinctive - things like circumcision, Sabbath, and the kosher food laws.

There are lots of other texts and reasons to believe that the Torah, as a set of practices that marked out Jew from Gentile, has been "retired with honour".

If one agrees that Torah has, in one sense anyway, been abolished, then it is entirely reasonable, in fact to be expected, that Jesus would undertake certain actions to symbollically enact that abolition.

So He indeed does break the Torah: he has contact with corpses, contact with menstruating women, and with lepers. I believe that these are all violations of the Torah. Not to mention the debated Sabbath breaking we see in Matthew 12.

If we look at Christs commandment, if we love one another we fulfil the law of Christ, it does not say we fulfil the law of Moses. However Christ law covers all the necessary things in the law of Moses.

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 18th 2008, 04:10 PM
I have found that being on this forum I study daily the word of God, and I am daily thankful to God and I know he daily blesses me.

Are we different in Gods eyes because what you do on the Sabbath I do daily?

Firstfruits


I fail to grasp how grace can be different from person to person. Are we not made justified through the same redemption?


Are you suggesting you are more pious because you do things every day? Because I do something on Sabbath does that mean I do not do it any other time? I breath on Sabbath as well.


Are you aware that studying scripture every day and being thankful to God every day will not save you?

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 04:18 PM
Are you aware that studying scripture every day and being thankful to God every day will not save you?

:confused

What's wrong with that? To have a heart for scripture would mean having a heart and mind for and of Christ. We would already be under grace to be doing so, and thus already a new man in Christ.

There is no one person better than the other for how they view the day of rest. No matter what you call it, even if we had no word for it and never said day of rest or Sabbath again - would the truth of what it is change?

Let's find our common ground here, and discuss as would be pleasing to Him as His church. What sort of testimony is this bringing to anyone reading?

Emanate
Sep 18th 2008, 04:24 PM
:confused

What's wrong with that? To have a heart for scripture would mean having a heart and mind for and of Christ. We would already be under grace to be doing so, and thus already a new man in Christ.

There is no one person better than the other for how they view the day of rest. No matter what you call it, even if we had no word for it and never said day of rest or Sabbath again - would the truth of what it is change?

Let's find our common ground here, and discuss as would be pleasing to Him as His church. What sort of testimony is this bringing to anyone reading?


You misinterpreted. I said nothing wrong with studying Scripture daily. However, it will not save you or me. Just as observing Sabbath will not save me or you.

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 04:36 PM
You misinterpreted. I said nothing wrong with studying Scripture daily. However, it will not save you or me. Just as observing Sabbath will not save me or you.

I understood, the thing is that why assume that is what the poster meant? They never stated as such, only that they study daily. Praise God for that!

2 Timothy 2

14Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
16But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,



Study to show yourself approved. In that there is no wrong.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 04:43 PM
If the truth sets us free, then why would we be in any sort of bondage? :hmm:

Oh, I don't know. I'm only human. What does God say about it?

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 04:45 PM
As another poster has pointed out, you have not really addressed the Ephesians 2 text where Paul clearly says that the Torah - the law - has been abolished. There are other arguments as to why we should understand Paul as asserting that Torah has been abolished - at least in some sense. But the following text says what it says:

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.

Paul is clearly talking about the Torah here. And he is talking about it specifically in its role of marking out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. So, at the very least, those aspects of the Torah that mark the Jew from the Gentile - circumcision, Sabbath, and purity laws - have been abolished.

I disagree with the context you frame it in. It's too Greek. I'll stick to the teachings of my rabbi, Yeshua.

Blessings

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 04:48 PM
That is not correct:

Joh 5:15-19 "The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole. (16) And therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the sabbath day. (17) But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work. (18) Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God. (19) Then Jesus answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. For whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise."

Note that this is the author John's commentary. The breaking of the sabbath is named on the same level as the fact that He said that God was His father. Both are true.

I'm sorry, nothing here indicates Yeshua disobeyed God's commands that He gave through Moses. Yeshua certainly broke men's traditions that put fences around Shabbat, but men are fallible. Yeshua is perfect. He is God.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 04:53 PM
:confused

What's wrong with that? To have a heart for scripture would mean having a heart and mind for and of Christ. We would already be under grace to be doing so, and thus already a new man in Christ.

There is no one person better than the other for how they view the day of rest. No matter what you call it, even if we had no word for it and never said day of rest or Sabbath again - would the truth of what it is change?

Let's find our common ground here, and discuss as would be pleasing to Him as His church. What sort of testimony is this bringing to anyone reading?

I think Jesus Himself would assert that testimonies of false teachings and men's traditions replacing God's commandmetns hardly serves as an uplifting message. I thnk Jesus wouldn't candy-coat His testimony with feel-good sermons. I think a dose of truth is much more uplifting, even if it hurts

But I don't think these arguments about Shabbat, etc, keep anyone from securing salvation. The Gospel is pretty simple. It's sanctification that we all bang our heads together on. That's the difference between growing up in a thesitic sociely like ancient Israel and a secular society like America. In Israel sanctification, as measured by those who sat in the seat of Moses proceeded faith. I don't think God's wanted that men pervert His Torah in a way that reveersed it's intent, but I think on this side of Yeshua we have it right. Faith proceeds and produces good works.

That's my honest, and humble opinion.

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:11 PM
I fail to grasp how grace can be different from person to person. Are we not made justified through the same redemption?


Are you suggesting you are more pious because you do things every day? Because I do something on Sabbath does that mean I do not do it any other time? I breath on Sabbath as well.


Are you aware that studying scripture every day and being thankful to God every day will not save you?

I did not realize we were talking about salvation, I thought we were talking about worshiping God.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:18 PM
:confused

What's wrong with that? To have a heart for scripture would mean having a heart and mind for and of Christ. We would already be under grace to be doing so, and thus already a new man in Christ.

There is no one person better than the other for how they view the day of rest. No matter what you call it, even if we had no word for it and never said day of rest or Sabbath again - would the truth of what it is change?

Let's find our common ground here, and discuss as would be pleasing to Him as His church. What sort of testimony is this bringing to anyone reading?

Thank you Threebigrocks,

I thought we were talking about worshiping God, I do not know how it changed to the issue of salvation.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:23 PM
I think Jesus Himself would assert that testimonies of false teachings and men's traditions replacing God's commandmetns hardly serves as an uplifting message. I thnk Jesus wouldn't candy-coat His testimony with feel-good sermons. I think a dose of truth is much more uplifting, even if it hurts

But I don't think these arguments about Shabbat, etc, keep anyone from securing salvation. The Gospel is pretty simple. It's sanctification that we all bang our heads together on. That's the difference between growing up in a thesitic sociely like ancient Israel and a secular society like America. In Israel sanctification, as measured by those who sat in the seat of Moses proceeded faith. I don't think God's wanted that men pervert His Torah in a way that reveersed it's intent, but I think on this side of Yeshua we have it right. Faith proceeds and produces good works.

That's my honest, and humble opinion.

I have a question, is the Torah the same as the Mosaic law as given at Mount Sinai?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 06:47 PM
I have a question, is the Torah the same as the Mosaic law as given at Mount Sinai?

Firstfruits

I have a question. Do you ever have an answer?

just kidding.

First we need to be clear what both our definitions of 'Torah' are. You start.

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:02 PM
I have a question. Do you ever have an answer?

just kidding.

First we need to be clear what both our definitions of 'Torah' are. You start.

From the scriptures used with the commandments in the Torah they are taken from the Mosaic law as given by God to Israel through Moses,although not always written according to what is written in the Mosaic law. Would that be right so far?

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 07:24 PM
From the scriptures used with the commandments in the Torah they are taken from the Mosaic law as given by God to Israel through Moses,although not always written according to what is written in the Mosaic law. Would that be right so far?

Firstfruits

Sorry, let me re-phrase. What is your definition of the word "Torah"?

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:31 PM
Sorry, let me re-phrase. What is your definition of the word "Torah"?

Sacred writtings from the law/the bible.

Firstfruits

Ta-An
Sep 18th 2008, 08:46 PM
Sacred writtings from the law/the bible.

FirstfruitsPlease make sure that you do not reference your own dictionary :D
There is a standard meaning to each word and phrase that is internationally recognized.... may we stick to that please :D

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 08:57 PM
Sacred writtings from the law/the bible.

Firstfruits

Ok, bear with me for a bit, please. I can't do this with soundbites. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the 'law of the LORD' (torat Adonai) refers to the revelation of God's will for human beings to live rightly before Him in light of His reality and holiness:

Psalms 19:7 The Torah of Adoani is perfect, converting the soul
Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the Torah of Adonai

The Torah of Adonai (Law of the LORD) reveals both the divine standard of life required of a 'tzaddik' (righteous person) and also the truth of our need for deliverance from ourselves. In order to be justified through Torah before the LORD, it demands that we live as morally perfect agents, regardless of any circumstance.

Leviticus 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am Adonai your God.

Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all

So, the moral aspect of Torah finds its most concrete expression in the Ten Commandments - which constitute the fundamental moral requirements given by the LORD of Israel to His people.

The moral law of God does nto change or accommodate itself to our weaknesses or frailties; they stand forever as teh abiding truth of God's requirements for the human sole to be blameless before Him. If we do not realize this, we are spiritually deadend; however the moment we awaken, life becomes a tragidy. Paul said "I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died (Romans 7:9)

What Paul is expressing is the conviction of our sinful condition, and that conviction itself is a gift from God, or we would not attend to the need of our hearts for the hope that can overcome the verdict of separation and death that hangs over us all. We would not truely repent without conviction.

Of course we all know that in Jewish tradition moral law is equated with the Torah of Moses, or the 613 commandments that are found in the collective writings of Moses. But...in the rabbininc tradition, these commandments, judgements and decrees are supplimented by the 'Oral Law', and are considered binding on the observant Jew. believe it or not, in some sects, rabbis claim that God Himself is bound to the Torah of Moses in the same way an architect is bound to his finished blueprints.

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.

In general terms, Torah can be understood as instruction about how to live rightly before God and with men. There are eight covenants revealed in Scripture: Edenic, Adamic, Noadic, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic, and the Brit Chadesha (we refer to as "New Covenant"). Each present a different (though not mutually exclusive) set of laws regarding how to relate rightly to God. Furthermore, and this is important - each of the covenants is ultimately predicated upon the promise of the coming Seed Who would remove the "ketatah" (curse) upon mankind and resre the children of man back to God and the Gan-Eden relationship.

Interestingly, in the days of Messiah, a lot of Jewish scholors (sages) argued that Torah would undergo change, for example, a pasaage from Vayikra rabah 9:7 states: "In the Time to Come (Olam Haba) all sacrifices (offerings) will be annulled, but that of thanksgiving will not be annulled". Check out Jeremial 33:11 for proof text. Looking around at Christians today, I see that coming to fullness, or at least the evidence of it.

Even more, some parts of Torah were modified by Moses himself, for example where to eat the Passover (Deut 16:2 changes it from thier homes to "a place that the LORD will choose") and when Torah was modified to allow meat to be eaten that was not slaughtered at the sanctuary as a sacrificial act (Lev 17 vs. Deut 12:15-16). And there are a few more.

Yeshua also indicated that Moses had changed the meaning of God's Torah as given in the earlier time (olam hazeh) - for example in Matthew 19:7-8 when Yeshua answered the certificate of divorce question..."....but in the beginning it was not so"

This indicates that Moses was given allowance to command things that were not originally from God "on the account of men's hearts". In other words God allowed this because He knew people would act contrary to His perfect will.

King David appears to have changed the literal words of Torah in light of God's covenant with him - he added to the words of Moses by devising and planning the holy Temple, yes? (1 Chronicles 28:11-20). David changed from a miskan centered sanctuary to a Temple-centered sanctuary! He also changed the duties of the priests, their age requriements, and service schedules.

But does all this really affect the meaning of Torah, especially when considering that half of the 613 are laws of priests?

Then -
Even after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the rabbis claimed a change in Torah when the sacrificial system was abandoned and replaced with prayer. This "Judaism without a temple" bypasses more Torah commands than Christians do, and since the Talmud is based largely on Leviticus, rabbinic Judaism as an interpretive authority of Torah indicates more of a change in Torah for Jews than for Christians!

Jesus came to ransom Israel from her sins (Isaiah 53), the second Temple was destroyed and the Jews began their 2000 year journey of suffering and exile. Throughout this period, Torah became more of an inward observance than an outward observance, i.e. prayer substituted for sacrifice.

The book of Hebrews provides the main New Testanment commentary on our "new" covenant, quoting directly from Jeremiah to establish it's application through the work of our Messiah, Yeshua. The actual word "new" in the Greek is "kainos", a word that does not mean "renewed", but rather "unheard of" or "unique". The new covenant changes the way of obtaining justification and righteousness before Adonai through faith in the grace of God as demonstrated in the offering of His Son as our atonement for sin, but it does not change the inner meaning of Torah to love Adoani and love one another.

So, what we are discussing is fairly complex than I or probably you and others think. That's why first, we must define what the word "Torah" really means before we can consider if that meaning is subject to change.

If Torah is understood to generally refer to the 'moral law' as an imperative of human reason to live acccording to those instructions, it is obvious that such a universal practice is not subject to change, but it also produces a sense of alienation in our hearts, since our moral condition is revealed. We rationalize and rationalize it, but 2 + 2 equals 4, so there are no valid exceptions to our duty to obey the perfect and moral law of God. I mean, it takes some courage and integrity for us to look inward and confess our guilt before God's law. But, by doing so, we open the door of hope for divine grace and deliverence that our righteousness can be obtained by faith.

Indeed, the word "Torah" really means "direction" or "instruction" - about how to live rightly before God and man, so it doesn't surprise me that it can change in relation to the covenants God has established with is and with Israel.

The word "Torah" should not be exclusively linked to Sinai, since the deeper purposes of God has always been to remove the curse from humanity through the sacrifice of His Son as the "Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world."

So, in the end of all these pages of Q/A and our constant struggle to seach out the face of God, you're correct, it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of love.

Bottom line, it's all about our heart-condition before God and men. God wants us in a Gan-Eden relationship. That's the intent, or the aim of Torah.

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 09:24 PM
Sometimes I wonder if we aren't debating how red a bottle of red wine is.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law till all is fulfilled", then went ahead and fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law; and He is the last Adam, and He represents before God all those who are IN HIM through repentance from sin and faith in Him. Therefore all those who are IN CHIRIST have fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law and are clothed with HIS righteousness.

Does this mean we can sin, or does this mean that we make the Law void through faith? No - it means we establish the Law.

What is the Law which has been fulfilled by the last Adam who represents before God all those who are IN HIM and are clothed with HIS righteousness? Love the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. The Ten Commandments hang on these two commandments.

Love doesn't only consist of negatives - of "do nots":

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me (love for God).

Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, murder, etc etc (love for neighbor).

Love is positive ACTION:

Keep the Sabbath holy unto me. Honor your father and your mother. Give one of your two coats to someone who has no coat.

Who does this - WHO fulfills this Law?

The Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus who is IN US - THE AUTHOR of the Law - HE prompts - HIS love overflows through us to others - or else it is OUR works and not HIS:

"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."
(Joh 15:5)

We cannot love others with agape love unless HE first loved us. It's impossible.

WE do not HAVE TO keep Sabbath holy unto God. The Law has ALREADY been fulfilled by the Last Adam. But ONE WAY in which we can RESPOND to the love of God who first loved us, is to keep Sabbath separate unto God (since we have every other day of the week for pursuing necessary worldly things - such as working).

It does not matter which day of the week we keep separate, for the actual day is merely a type and shadow of things to come:

"Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." (Col.2: 16-17).

And the Law has already been fulfilled (past tense) by the last Adam, who represents us before God.

And I think we all agree on this - so why argue about how red a bottle of red wine is?

Unless we are arguing that we MUST keep the Sabbath holy and that we MUST fulfill a Law which, because fallen man could not fulfill it, Immannuel Himself fulfilled it?

:confused

ananias

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 09:42 PM
I don't think the argument is 'must', but certainly could be construed as such, even producing emnity. Such is the circumstance of conviction. There is no way I could bring to fullness one Torah command, let alone be righteous in the effort.

I don't beleive all promises have been fulfilled, by the way. Yeshua was speaking of more than just the commandments of Torah, and I think a lot of the types and shadows are mis-characterized by Greek reasoning and mysticism. That said, these incongruities don't keep anyone locked out of the Kingdom, but also don't allow full access to the character of God that He chose to reveal to us.

But really, when God reveals some of His character through our obedience to Him, it's a mighty kool blessing, yes?

Oh.....and by the way.. LOL......I don;'t like red wine. Reisling or Chardonney, especially from the Golan heights is really good. But I will say the One wine we can all love is the One poured out in us.

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 09:59 PM
I don't think the argument is 'must', but certainly could be construed as such, even producing emnity. Such is the circumstance of conviction. There is no way I could bring to fullness one Torah command, let alone be righteous in the effort.

I don't beleive all promises have been fulfilled, by the way. Yeshua was speaking of more than just the commandments of Torah, and I think a lot of the types and shadows are mis-characterized by Greek reasoning and mysticism. That said, these incongruities don't keep anyone locked out of the Kingdom, but also don't allow full access to the character of God that He chose to reveal to us.

But really, when God reveals some of His character through our obedience to Him, it's a mighty kool blessing, yes?

Oh.....and by the way.. LOL......I don;'t like red wine. Reisling or Chardonney, especially from the Golan heights is really good. But I will say the One wine we can all love is the One poured out in us.

I guess then you drink red grape-juice and not wine during Pesach seder? LOL.

Seriously, though, I think there is a distinction between promises based on the grace of God (one one hand) and the Ten Commandments on the other hand. I also don't think every promise and every prophecy based on God's PROMISE to Abraham has been fulfilled - it's the inheritance of Yeshua which He has not yet taken. But how much does this have to do with the holiness which is expressed in the Ten Commandments?

ananias

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 10:10 PM
I guess then you drink red grape-juice and not wine during Pesach seder? LOL.

Seriously, though, I think there is a distinction between promises based on the grace of God (one one hand) and the Ten Commandments on the other hand. I also don't think every promise and every prophecy based on God's PROMISE to Abraham has been fulfilled - it's the inheritance of Yeshua which He has not yet taken. But how much does this have to do with the holiness which is expressed in the Ten Commandments?

ananias

No, no, no...I said Chardonnay...Have you eer wondered how the wine Jesus made from water tasted? Even if it was purple, I wouldn't hesitate to drink it!

I do Pesach when Yeshua did it, to honor Him, not to fulfill some mitzvah. I try, (and fail a lot) to center everything I do around my LORD, Yeshua. But He's teaching me through His Word, through others, somethimes even through you, and for that I say God bless you and may He keep and treasure you. Usually the important lessons come through intense struggle and humility.

Anyway, I really am at a point where I am truly enjoing my LORD. It's no longer just limited knowlege and sunday school lessons and stuff that fills my brain. It's this joy in my heart that He is with me all the time, everywhere. Difficult to explain, but He lifts my up even more than I can lift Him up. Ironically I don't deserve my next breath from Him. He is my substance, my soul, my heart. But as Paul said, the flesh is constantly at odds with what I desire to do. That's what I look forward to Him to free me from.

drew
Sep 18th 2008, 10:11 PM
I disagree with the context you frame it in. It's too Greek. I'll stick to the teachings of my rabbi, Yeshua.
Just so that we understand each other, do you or do you not believe that Paul was writing inspired scripture when he wrote these words:

For 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.

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 would be an exceedingly challenging case to make since Paul usually means "Torah" when he refers to the term "law". And the context makes it even more clear. He is writing about something that discriminates between Jew and Gentile. And that is what the Torah does - it marks out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile.

We know from Paul that there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile. How can that be possible without abolition of at least the "ceremonial" part of the Torah - that part which clearly marked the Jew from the Gentile?

The only other position is to assume that we are all under the obligation of the entire Torah.

But that cannot be reconciled with Paul's clear statement that "the law" has been abolished.

Later note added : Since I posted the above, I noticed you made a long post which I have yet to read. Hope to do so later....

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 10:13 PM
I believe Paul's writings are in perfect harmony with the will of God.

It's your interpretation I struggle with.

Does that answer your question?

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 10:21 PM
No, no, no...I said Chardonnay...Have you eer wondered how the wine Jesus made from water tasted? Even if it was purple, I wouldn't hesitate to drink it!

I do Pesach when Yeshua did it, to honor Him, not to fulfill some mitzvah. I try, (and fail a lot) to center everything I do around my LORD, Yeshua. But He's teaching me through His Word, through others, somethimes even through you, and for that I say God bless you and may He keep and treasure you. Usually the important lessons come through intense struggle and humility.

Anyway, I really am at a point where I am truly enjoing my LORD. It's no longer just limited knowlege and sunday school lessons and stuff that fills my brain. It's this joy in my heart that He is with me all the time, everywhere. Difficult to explain, but He lifts my up even more than I can lift Him up. Ironically I don't deserve my next breath from Him. He is my substance, my soul, my heart. But as Paul said, the flesh is constantly at odds with what I desire to do. That's what I look forward to Him to free me from.

God bless you, keck553. I can tell your heart is close to the Lord. Actually, that goes for Firstfruits and everyone else whose posts I've read here - that's what I like about BibleForums. One can tell the love that folks here have for the Word of God - a sure measure of their love for God.

ananias

drew
Sep 18th 2008, 10:23 PM
I believe Paul's writings are in perfect harmony with the will of God.

It's your interpretation I struggle with.

Does that answer your question?
But the wording seems to force one to conclude that at least some part of the Torah has been abolished. If you are saying that in the statement:

abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

....that the word "abolish" means something other than "do away with" or if you think "the law" is not a reference to Torah, then we cannot make any progress.

From my perspective you seem to be taking the position of a person who says that this statement:

"Fred abolished his rule about his having to go to bed before 11 PM"

....means something other than what it obviously means, namely that Fred has done with, or discarded, the rule that he has to go to bed before 11.

drew
Sep 18th 2008, 10:28 PM
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.

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 10:29 PM
Just so that we understand each other, do you or do you not believe that Paul was writing inspired scripture when he wrote these words:

For 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.

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 would be an exceedingly challenging case to make since Paul usually means "Torah" when he refers to the term "law". And the context makes it even more clear. He is writing about something that discriminates between Jew and Gentile. And that is what the Torah does - it marks out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile.

We know from Paul that there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile. How can that be possible without abolition of at least the "ceremonial" part of the Torah - that part which clearly marked the Jew from the Gentile?



"And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; in which were all the four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven.

And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat!

But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.

And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common." (Act.10: 11-15).

Peter was to go and eat with Gentile converts. It is clear from Paul's much later rebuke of Peter's hypocrasy with regard to this, that Peter had a natural prejudice against Gentiles, and God didn't want either Peter's legalistic observance of the Jewish dietary laws (which were part of the Torah) or Peter's prejudice against Gentiles, interfering with Christ's gospel which had come to Cornelius and his household.

The Law which was the dividing barrier between Jew and Gentile had been abolished.

ananias

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 11:34 PM
Now please give us your version.

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.

Alaska
Sep 19th 2008, 01:16 AM
15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.


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!

SIG
Sep 19th 2008, 01:39 AM
Available Translations and Versions for Eph 2:15

KJV - Eph 2:15 - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
King James Version 1611, 1769


NKJV - Eph 2:15 - having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson


NLT - Eph 2:15 - By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles. His purpose was to make peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new person from the two groups.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust


NIV - Eph 2:15 - by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society


ESV - Eph 2:15 - by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles


RVR - Eph 2:15 - aboliendo en su carne las enemistades, la ley de los mandamientos expresados en ordenanzas, para crear en sí mismo de los dos un solo y nuevo hombre, haciendo la paz,

Reina-Valera copyright © 1960 Sociedades Bíblicas en América Latina; copyright © renewed 1988 United Bible Societies.


NASB - Eph 2:15 - by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, {which is} the Law of commandments {contained} in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, {thus} establishing peace,
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation


RSV - Eph 2:15 - by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.


ASV - Eph 2:15 - having abolished in the flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, [so] making peace;
American Standard Version 1901 Info


Young - Eph 2:15 - the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info


Darby - Eph 2:15 - having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might form the two in himself into one new man, making peace;
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info


Webster - Eph 2:15 - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances: to make in himself of two one new man, [so] making peace;
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info


HNV - Eph 2:15 - having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the law of mitzvot contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making shalom;
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info


Vulgate - Eph 2:15 - legem mandatorum decretis evacuans ut duos condat in semet ipsum in unum novum hominem faciens pacem
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 07:45 AM
Please make sure that you do not reference your own dictionary :D
There is a standard meaning to each word and phrase that is internationally recognized.... may we stick to that please :D

This was my first explanation;

From the scriptures used with the commandments in the Torah they are taken from the Mosaic law as given by God to Israel through Moses,although not always written according to what is written in the Mosaic law. Would that be right so far?

This is not from the dictionary.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 07:50 AM
Ok, bear with me for a bit, please. I can't do this with soundbites. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the 'law of the LORD' (torat Adonai) refers to the revelation of God's will for human beings to live rightly before Him in light of His reality and holiness:

Psalms 19:7 The Torah of Adoani is perfect, converting the soul
Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the Torah of Adonai

The Torah of Adonai (Law of the LORD) reveals both the divine standard of life required of a 'tzaddik' (righteous person) and also the truth of our need for deliverance from ourselves. In order to be justified through Torah before the LORD, it demands that we live as morally perfect agents, regardless of any circumstance.

Leviticus 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am Adonai your God.

Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all

So, the moral aspect of Torah finds its most concrete expression in the Ten Commandments - which constitute the fundamental moral requirements given by the LORD of Israel to His people.

The moral law of God does nto change or accommodate itself to our weaknesses or frailties; they stand forever as teh abiding truth of God's requirements for the human sole to be blameless before Him. If we do not realize this, we are spiritually deadend; however the moment we awaken, life becomes a tragidy. Paul said "I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died (Romans 7:9)

What Paul is expressing is the conviction of our sinful condition, and that conviction itself is a gift from God, or we would not attend to the need of our hearts for the hope that can overcome the verdict of separation and death that hangs over us all. We would not truely repent without conviction.

Of course we all know that in Jewish tradition moral law is equated with the Torah of Moses, or the 613 commandments that are found in the collective writings of Moses. But...in the rabbininc tradition, these commandments, judgements and decrees are supplimented by the 'Oral Law', and are considered binding on the observant Jew. believe it or not, in some sects, rabbis claim that God Himself is bound to the Torah of Moses in the same way an architect is bound to his finished blueprints.

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.

In general terms, Torah can be understood as instruction about how to live rightly before God and with men. There are eight covenants revealed in Scripture: Edenic, Adamic, Noadic, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic, and the Brit Chadesha (we refer to as "New Covenant"). Each present a different (though not mutually exclusive) set of laws regarding how to relate rightly to God. Furthermore, and this is important - each of the covenants is ultimately predicated upon the promise of the coming Seed Who would remove the "ketatah" (curse) upon mankind and resre the children of man back to God and the Gan-Eden relationship.

Interestingly, in the days of Messiah, a lot of Jewish scholors (sages) argued that Torah would undergo change, for example, a pasaage from Vayikra rabah 9:7 states: "In the Time to Come (Olam Haba) all sacrifices (offerings) will be annulled, but that of thanksgiving will not be annulled". Check out Jeremial 33:11 for proof text. Looking around at Christians today, I see that coming to fullness, or at least the evidence of it.

Even more, some parts of Torah were modified by Moses himself, for example where to eat the Passover (Deut 16:2 changes it from thier homes to "a place that the LORD will choose") and when Torah was modified to allow meat to be eaten that was not slaughtered at the sanctuary as a sacrificial act (Lev 17 vs. Deut 12:15-16). And there are a few more.

Yeshua also indicated that Moses had changed the meaning of God's Torah as given in the earlier time (olam hazeh) - for example in Matthew 19:7-8 when Yeshua answered the certificate of divorce question..."....but in the beginning it was not so"

This indicates that Moses was given allowance to command things that were not originally from God "on the account of men's hearts". In other words God allowed this because He knew people would act contrary to His perfect will.

King David appears to have changed the literal words of Torah in light of God's covenant with him - he added to the words of Moses by devising and planning the holy Temple, yes? (1 Chronicles 28:11-20). David changed from a miskan centered sanctuary to a Temple-centered sanctuary! He also changed the duties of the priests, their age requriements, and service schedules.

But does all this really affect the meaning of Torah, especially when considering that half of the 613 are laws of priests?

Then -
Even after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the rabbis claimed a change in Torah when the sacrificial system was abandoned and replaced with prayer. This "Judaism without a temple" bypasses more Torah commands than Christians do, and since the Talmud is based largely on Leviticus, rabbinic Judaism as an interpretive authority of Torah indicates more of a change in Torah for Jews than for Christians!

Jesus came to ransom Israel from her sins (Isaiah 53), the second Temple was destroyed and the Jews began their 2000 year journey of suffering and exile. Throughout this period, Torah became more of an inward observance than an outward observance, i.e. prayer substituted for sacrifice.

The book of Hebrews provides the main New Testanment commentary on our "new" covenant, quoting directly from Jeremiah to establish it's application through the work of our Messiah, Yeshua. The actual word "new" in the Greek is "kainos", a word that does not mean "renewed", but rather "unheard of" or "unique". The new covenant changes the way of obtaining justification and righteousness before Adonai through faith in the grace of God as demonstrated in the offering of His Son as our atonement for sin, but it does not change the inner meaning of Torah to love Adoani and love one another.

So, what we are discussing is fairly complex than I or probably you and others think. That's why first, we must define what the word "Torah" really means before we can consider if that meaning is subject to change.

If Torah is understood to generally refer to the 'moral law' as an imperative of human reason to live acccording to those instructions, it is obvious that such a universal practice is not subject to change, but it also produces a sense of alienation in our hearts, since our moral condition is revealed. We rationalize and rationalize it, but 2 + 2 equals 4, so there are no valid exceptions to our duty to obey the perfect and moral law of God. I mean, it takes some courage and integrity for us to look inward and confess our guilt before God's law. But, by doing so, we open the door of hope for divine grace and deliverence that our righteousness can be obtained by faith.

Indeed, the word "Torah" really means "direction" or "instruction" - about how to live rightly before God and man, so it doesn't surprise me that it can change in relation to the covenants God has established with is and with Israel.

The word "Torah" should not be exclusively linked to Sinai, since the deeper purposes of God has always been to remove the curse from humanity through the sacrifice of His Son as the "Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world."

So, in the end of all these pages of Q/A and our constant struggle to seach out the face of God, you're correct, it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of love.

Bottom line, it's all about our heart-condition before God and men. God wants us in a Gan-Eden relationship. That's the intent, or the aim of Torah.

So was I therefore correct with what I said;

From the scriptures used with the commandments in the Torah they are taken from the Mosaic law as given by God to Israel through Moses,although not always written according to what is written in the Mosaic law.

How does the Torah then apply to the New Covenant which God said is not according to the the law that God gave to Israel through Moses?

Firstfruits

Philip dT
Sep 19th 2008, 09:41 AM
So, what we are discussing is fairly complex than I or probably you and others think. That's why first, we must define what the word "Torah" really means before we can consider if that meaning is subject to change.I would say that the best definition for Torah is found in the New Testament. The New Testament equivalent "nomos" refers throughout all the gospels to the first 5 books of the Bible: that includes all the laws - especially because it is often used in the context of "the law and the prophets." As pointed out before, "pleroô" means accomplish, finish, complete, end. Jesus has come to end the whole law - the whole Old Testament - the whole Old Covenant.

By the way, the same meaning is still carried over to modern Judaism. The Tanach refers to the Torah (5 books of Moses), the nivi-im (prophets) and ketovim (writings).

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 12:57 PM
By the way, the same meaning is still carried over to modern Judaism. The Tanach refers to the Torah (5 books of Moses), the nivi-im (prophets) and ketovim (writings).


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.

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 01:00 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 01:42 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 01:51 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 01:58 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): תנ״ך‎) (IPA: [taˈnax] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA) or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) used in Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism). The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language) acronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism) formed from the initial Hebrew letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet) of the Tanakh's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevi%27im) ("Prophets") and Ketuvim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:00 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:08 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:16 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:19 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:23 PM
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29241AE))formerly (AF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29241AF))you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "(AG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29241AG))Uncircumcision" by the so-called "(AH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29241AH))Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--

12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (AI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29242AI))excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29242AJ))the covenants of promise, having (AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29242AK))no hope and (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29242AL))without God in the world.
13But now in (AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29243AM))Christ Jesus you who (AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29243AN))formerly were (AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29243AO))far off have (AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29243AP))been brought near (AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29243AQ))by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is (AR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29244AR))our peace, (AS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29244AS))who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by (AT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29245AT))abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29245AU))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
Sep 19th 2008, 02:42 PM
The Tanakh (Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): תנ״ך‎) (IPA: [taˈnax] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA) or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) used in Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism). The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language) acronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism) formed from the initial Hebrew letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet) of the Tanakh's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevi%27im) ("Prophets") and Ketuvim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
[/URL]


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: [url]http://www.milechai.com/judaism/torah.html (http://www.milechai.com/judaism/torah.html)

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 05:06 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 05:20 PM
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
Sep 19th 2008, 05:54 PM
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.:eek: :help:

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

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/All%20613%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
Sep 19th 2008, 06:06 PM
:eek: :help:

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

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/All%20613%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
Sep 19th 2008, 06:08 PM
"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.

Ta-An
Sep 19th 2008, 06:27 PM
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.Unfortunately it is Shabbat already, so I can not get the ref on the net for you..... The reason for lighting a candle is done because of "Remember the Sabbath" (Exodus 20:8) and "Observe the Sabbath" (Deuteronomy 5:12). It is what we do to remember, or what we do to observe....Just like to bring an offering,,,,, you either put something on the alter, or put money in a bag....
When it is a birthday.... have you ever seen candles on a cake?? It is a way of remembering ...and also... Jesus says "I AM the Light of this World," and do we not also rest in Him??

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 06:30 PM
Unfortunately it is Shabbat already, so I can not get the ref on the net for you..... The reason for lighting a candle is done because of "Remember the Sabbath" (Exodus 20:8) and "Observe the Sabbath" (Deuteronomy 5:12).
When it is a birthday.... have you ever seen candles on a cake?? It is a way of remembering ...and also... Jesus says "I AM the Light of this World," and do we not also rest in Him??


It does not change the fact that lighting a candle is not a command found in scripture. I am not dismissing the application it has many peoples lives.

There is also detailed discussion in the talmud regarding the commands of defecating that are not commands found in Torah. Still, it is Jewish Law.

Ta-An
Sep 19th 2008, 06:39 PM
Jewish Law. terminology is so important.....
it is such a short word, with such a wide meaning...
On Halakhah: Jewish Law...... http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 06:51 PM
terminology is so important.....
it is such a short word, with such a wide meaning...
On Halakhah: Jewish Law...... http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm


I am somewhat familar with halacha. It is still violation of Torah to add to the commands in the Word. Taking for doctrine the commands of men.

Ta-An
Sep 19th 2008, 07:08 PM
It is still violation of Torah to add to the commands in the Word. Taking for doctrine the commands of men.So? :dunno:
.

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 07:12 PM
So? :dunno:
.


I don't know why so. I forgot.:hmm:

Ta-An
Sep 19th 2008, 07:29 PM
I don't know why so. I forgot.:hmm::lol:
It does not change the fact that lighting a candle is not a command found in scripture. let's take a look at this statement of yours....
It says that you need to honor your parents.... it is not prescribed to us, what to do, or what not to do... so how do you honor your parents??
If I pull a tongue at them, is that dishonoring them?? The Bibles does not say so..... can you see where I am going with this?? :hmm:
if I am disobedient to them, is that dishonoring them>> The Bible does not say so..... same with if I light a candle....;) it is a tradition that fits with the ...commandment :)

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 09:36 PM
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?

It means authority has been given to Yeshua.

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 09:38 PM
:lol: let's take a look at this statement of yours....
It says that you need to honor your parents.... it is not prescribed to us, what to do, or what not to do... so how do you honor your parents??
If I pull a tongue at them, is that dishonoring them?? The Bibles does not say so..... can you see where I am going with this?? :hmm:
if I am disobedient to them, is that dishonoring them>> The Bible does not say so..... same with if I light a candle....;) it is a tradition that fits with the ...commandment :)


shabbat shalom everyone!

Philip dT
Sep 20th 2008, 05:37 PM
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.This is a later development, certainly not at the time when the gospels were used. Torah as Jesus used it did not refer to the extra-biblical traditions of the Jews (that existed mainly in oral form at the time of Jesus), in fact, he clearly speaks against it:

e.g. Mat 15:2-3; Mark 7:3-5

The point that I originally made is that when Jesus used the term "nomos" and when "nomos" occurs throughout the gospels, the five books of Moses are intended, as the first part of the Tanach. The fact that the term "torah" was later developed to include more than the five books of Moses in the religion of Judaism is irrelevant to the meaning of "nomos" in the gospels.

When Jesus therefore refers to the fact that He completed, accomplished and ended the "nomos" referring to the first five books of the bible, that includes all the laws, including the ten commandments and the sabbath.

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:03 AM
God gathered Israel before him at Mount Sinai to speak to them and give them his commandments statues and judgments, however by the time God had spoken to them the tenth commandment the fear of the people was so strong that they no longer wanted to hear directly from God. Every other commandment was then given to Moses and given to Israel.

Deut 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) These words The LORD spake unto all your assembly in The mount out of The midst of The fire, of The cloud, and of The thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote Them in two tables of stone, and delivered Them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

When God therefore speaks of the law of Moses and obedience to it God is not Just referring to the first ten.

God bless.

Firstfruits

If there are only ten commandments, then from whom are the following commandments as they are not in the ten which were given directly to Israel?

The laws of the feasts.

The laws of the tithe.

The dietary laws.

Just to name a few.

Thanks

Firstfruits

4crunburg
Oct 5th 2013, 01:58 PM
When God therefore speaks of the law of Moses and obedience to it God is not Just referring to the first ten.

God bless.

Firstfruits



Amen to your words

4crunburg
Oct 5th 2013, 02:12 PM
King James Version
And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

The above I put to memory when I was a boy