PDA

View Full Version : blood line



nettiel
Nov 12th 2008, 01:39 PM
ive been studying alot about the bloodline, satan cant cross the blood line.i would like to learn more about praying the bloodline over my body,family.home,if you pray the bloodline or just want to talk im here:hug:

9Marksfan
Nov 18th 2008, 10:50 AM
ive been studying alot about the bloodline, satan cant cross the blood line.i would like to learn more about praying the bloodline over my body,family.home,if you pray the bloodline or just want to talk im here:hug:

Where are you getting this idea from? I don't see it in the bible.

chal
Nov 18th 2008, 11:04 AM
Where are you getting this idea from? I don't see it in the bible.

chal> That term is sometimes used to mean; praying to break "generational curses," (which is a whole nother can-o-worms). I'm not sure if that is what is meant here or not.

9Marksfan
Nov 18th 2008, 06:40 PM
chal> That term is sometimes used to mean; praying to break "generational curses," (which is a whole nother can-o-worms). I'm not sure if that is what is meant here or not.

More unbiblical superstition......:B

Amos_with_goats
Nov 19th 2008, 06:18 AM
ive been studying alot about the bloodline, satan cant cross the blood line.i would like to learn more about praying the bloodline over my body,family.home,if you pray the bloodline or just want to talk im here:hug:

The idea of generational the curse is found in scripture... where is the idea of 'praying the bloodline' or that Satan can not 'cross the bloodline'?

If not in scripture I would throw the book you are reading in the trash. I know that sounds harsh, but if they claim a doctrine not directly supported by scripture in dealing with generational sin.... RUN!

Blessings to you, may you find relief through Christ for whatever generational issue you are facing.

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 02:58 PM
The concept of a generational curse, if any, is an Old Testament concept.

There is no support for any such proposition in the New Testament.

"If any many [or woman] is in Christ, he/she is a new creation."

No room for "generational curses."

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 12:16 AM
chal> That term is sometimes used to mean; praying to break "generational curses," (which is a whole nother can-o-worms). I'm not sure if that is what is meant here or not.

I am going to have to agree with 9Marksfan. Consider these verses:

Deu 24:16 “Fathers are not put to death for their children, and
children are not put to death for their fathers, each is to die for
his own sin.

Eze 18:20 “The being who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the
crookedness of the father, nor the father bear the crookedness of the
son. The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the
wrongness of the wrong is upon himself.

There are other verses like this. I think it is clear that only the sin of Adam is passed on to all that followed.

Early in my walk, many years ago now, one of my best friends had this favorite verse, I truly can't remember it. He would quote it often and it served him well in his ministry to addicts. One day, after I had read the scriptures pretty much through, I heard him say it again. So I asked, "what book is that in?" I don't remember his answer now, lets just say Ephesians. Suspecting it wasn't anywhere in scripture, we looked. Then I pulled out a Strong's concordance and looked up any and all the words he used. Sure enough, it wasn't in there. His favorite verse wasn't a verse at all. We had a good laugh.

I don't have a photographic mind or anything like that, but my scriptural memory is pretty good. I don't remember anything stating a "curse" being passed on like that. What I would do, if I was you, is use a concordance and if you don't have one go to biblegateway.com and enter the word "curse." You may have to sift through a couple of hundred verses, but you'll settle it one way or the other. And please, let me know if it is in there...it will make me have to re-think a bunch of things.

Peace to you and blessings in your search!
Ken

chad
Nov 20th 2008, 03:40 AM
I'm not sure about a blood line as in Geneology, but I know there is power in the blood of Jesus. This refers to Jesus death and Ressurection, dying on the cross for our sins and paying the price so that we can have forgiveness of sins.

(Heb 10:16 NIV) "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

(Heb 10:17 NIV) Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."

(Heb 10:18 NIV) And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

(Heb 10:19 NIV) Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,
(Heb 10:20 NIV) by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
(Heb 10:21 NIV) and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
(Heb 10:22 NIV) let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.


(1 John 1:7 NIV) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.


Chad :rolleyes:



ive been studying alot about the bloodline, satan cant cross the blood line.i would like to learn more about praying the bloodline over my body,family.home,if you pray the bloodline or just want to talk im here:hug:

chal
Nov 20th 2008, 09:54 AM
I am going to have to agree with 9Marksfan. Consider these verses:

Deu 24:16 “Fathers are not put to death for their children, and
children are not put to death for their fathers, each is to die for
his own sin.

Eze 18:20 “The being who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the
crookedness of the father, nor the father bear the crookedness of the
son. The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the
wrongness of the wrong is upon himself.

There are other verses like this. I think it is clear that only the sin of Adam is passed on to all that followed.

Early in my walk, many years ago now, one of my best friends had this favorite verse, I truly can't remember it. He would quote it often and it served him well in his ministry to addicts. One day, after I had read the scriptures pretty much through, I heard him say it again. So I asked, "what book is that in?" I don't remember his answer now, lets just say Ephesians. Suspecting it wasn't anywhere in scripture, we looked. Then I pulled out a Strong's concordance and looked up any and all the words he used. Sure enough, it wasn't in there. His favorite verse wasn't a verse at all. We had a good laugh.

I don't have a photographic mind or anything like that, but my scriptural memory is pretty good. I don't remember anything stating a "curse" being passed on like that. What I would do, if I was you, is use a concordance and if you don't have one go to biblegateway.com and enter the word "curse." You may have to sift through a couple of hundred verses, but you'll settle it one way or the other. And please, let me know if it is in there...it will make me have to re-think a bunch of things.

Peace to you and blessings in your search!
Ken

chal> Thank you for your suggestions on how I should study the Bible. However, I have lots of Bible software tools with many different resources, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries etc, which I have used to teach SS in the past and continue to use for studying on my own and with my wife.

That said, I think comprehending through prayer for illumination first and then careful study, meditation and consideration in life application, what we glean from study, is much more important than who has the biggest arsenal of study tools.

I made no claims in the post you quoted, concerning scriptural content. I only tried to shed some light on what was meant by the OP, which IMO wasn't very clear. My comment had nothing to do with Biblical content. I'm sure if you read it in context of the thread, you will see that it was in reference to the OP and not the Bible.

For the record, below is how I understand it from a viewpoint of having researched and studied the Bible on the issue and what I have gathered from the experience of studying with people who used similar terms to those used in the OP.

This is what I would call (and what is generally referred to) as a generational curse;

Deut. 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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,

chal> Personally, I think it refers to the children learning or being influenced by the sins of their fathers, not to them being forced into anything or punished for something that they are innnocent of.

and this explains how it works in my understanding;

Jeremiah 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. [30] But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

9Marksfan
Nov 20th 2008, 09:58 AM
chal> Thank you for your suggestions on how I should study the Bible. However, I have lots of Bible software tools with many different resources, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries etc, which I have used to teach SS in the past and continue to use for studying on my own and with my wife.

That said, I think comprehending through prayer for illumination first and then careful study, meditation and consideration in life application, what we glean from study, is much more important than who has the biggest arsenal of study tools.

I made no claims in the post you quoted, concerning scriptural content. I only tried to shed some light on what was meant by the OP, which IMO wasn't very clear. My comment had nothing to do with Biblical content. I'm sure if you read it in context of the thread, you will see that it was in reference to the OP and not the Bible.

For the record, below is how I understand it from a viewpoint of having researched and studied the Bible on the issue and what I have gathered from the experience of studying with people who used similar terms to those used in the OP.

This is what I would call (and what is generally referred to) as a generational curse;

Deut. 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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,

chal> Personally, I think it refers to the children learning or being influenced by the sins of their fathers, not to them being forced into anything or punished for something that they are innnocent of.

and this explains how it works in my understanding;

Jeremiah 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. [30] But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31 is all about the New Covenant, which Heb 8 makes abundantly clear has come with the coming of Christ - so we're living under it here and now. So even if there were generational curses in the OT (highly doubtful), it no longer applies - and there seems to be nothing whatsoever in either the OT or the NT about the "bloodline protecting us" or "praying the bloodline" - do you agree?

chal
Nov 20th 2008, 10:18 AM
Jer 31 is all about the New Covenant, which Heb 8 makes abundantly clear has come with the coming of Christ - so we're living under it here and now. So even if there were generational curses in the OT (highly doubtful), it no longer applies - and there seems to be nothing whatsoever in either the OT or the NT about the "bloodline protecting us" or "praying the bloodline" - do you agree?

chal> I agree with scripture as I understand it and have presented it as clearly as I can in my last post. I think if someone wants to use terms such as this, that cannot be found in scripture under the same wording, they should define what they mean by the term. If not, I can't very well agree or disagree. I think that if you asked 10 people who,"pray the bloodline," what it means, you would get 10 different answers.

I do think that praying for your bloodline;

bloodline
n 1: the descendants of one individual; "his entire lineage has
been warriors"

can be very profitable, for both for yourself and for them. I also think that sometimes this is perhaps what is meant by the term.

I don't think there is a simplistic answer to your question, unless you mean that those specific words are not used. Whether the concept is there or not, depends on what is meant by the term. Many arguments tun into muddle because terms are not defined at the beginning.

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 10:30 AM
Chal....I might be new here, but I am not a rookie. I don't know you, I know nothing about you. You posted a question, I thought I would take some of my time to share some insight. In no way was I trying to belittle you, so no need for you to defend yourself by listing your arsenal of biblical tools. I am glad you are intelligent enough to equip yourself in that manner...but I had no way to know that, did I?

As for your Deut. verse, there is merit to it and I will make it a topic of study for our Sabbath morning class. However, Mark was correct in context, the Jer. 31 verses you shared were the prelude to the new covenant promise in verses 31-34. Seeing this covenant is made through the blood of Yahushua (Jesus), and seeing the context of he NT shows this covenant is done on an individual basis (though we collectively exist as one whole body of course), then any prior sin that MAY have been sent through a bloodline would be irrelevant...or the work Messiah did was in vain!

I still don't see how, save for Adam, one man's sin is passed down to the next generation. You shared one verse on that, and no offense, I don't create opinion from one verse. I have found that God confirms his own Word, so if there are other verses stating this you have found, I would ask that you share them. Thanks.
Peace.
Ken

chal
Nov 20th 2008, 11:41 AM
Chal....I might be new here, but I am not a rookie. I don't know you, I know nothing about you. You posted a question, I thought I would take some of my time to share some insight. In no way was I trying to belittle you, so no need for you to defend yourself by listing your arsenal of biblical tools. I am glad you are intelligent enough to equip yourself in that manner...but I had no way to know that, did I?

chal> I said nothing concerning your status on this board or anywhere else and it doesn't concern me whether or not you're a "rookie." If you're posting here according to the board rules you're welcome.

Evidently you misunderstood my post. I did not list my arsenal of study tools, but only said that I do have an adequate supply and even posted that it was not the most important thing to consider. My point was that perhaps you should consider that being a Christian message board, that you are probably not the only person here who has access to Bible study tools and/or, knows how to use them, rather than assume the opposite as you did. I wasn't "defending myself," I was only trying to show that your concern was unfounded.


As for your Deut. verse, there is merit to it and I will make it a topic of study for our Sabbath morning class. However, Mark was correct in context, the Jer. 31 verses you shared were the prelude to the new covenant promise in verses 31-34. Seeing this covenant is made through the blood of Yahushua (Jesus), and seeing the context of he NT shows this covenant is done on an individual basis (though we collectively exist as one whole body of course), then any prior sin that MAY have been sent through a bloodline would be irrelevant...or the work Messiah did was in vain!

chal> Perhaps you could present a Biblically supported explanation of how you came to these conclusions so that others may learn from it. Maybe you could share what you learn from your class.


I still don't see how, save for Adam, one man's sin is passed down to the next generation. You shared one verse on that, and no offense, I don't create opinion from one verse. I have found that God confirms his own Word, so if there are other verses stating this you have found, I would ask that you share them. Thanks.
Peace.
Ken

chal> I did more than "share one scripture." I posted two scriptures with an explanation of why I posted them.

My post had nothing to do with sins being "passed down from one generation to another." You are constructing a straw man. I think that concept is a false conclusion in regard to "generational curses," or God visiting the iniquity of one generation to another if you prefer exact Biblical wording. I explained that in my previous post;


chal> Personally, I think it refers to the children learning or being influenced by the sins of their fathers, not to them being forced into anything or punished for something that they are innnocent of.

and this explains how it works in my understanding;

Jeremiah 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. [30] But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.chal> IMO, it doesn't matter whether you view this from an OT or NT perspective. I don't believe that one man will pay the price for another's sin. I don't think anyone ever has, NT, OT or between. I posted this earlier;


and this explains how it works in my understanding;

Jeremiah 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. [30] But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.because it explains in simple graphic detail that no man will pay for another's sin. It concerns what people used to "say," and will, no longer "say," It doesn't say that God used to make the children pay for sins that their father's committed and it will discontinue under the NT. That may be true, but I don't see it in this text. Perhaps those who proclaim this argument can show from scripture that God ever required a child to pay the price of his father's sin and then changed the procedure.

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 12:29 PM
Chal, the trouble with message boards, e-mail, the internet in general, is that "tone" is not always represented in one's written word. I am not sure if I took what you said wrong, you me, or both.

I am very particular in what I say as I understand the implications of words. So when I said I don't know you, knew nothing about you...which is true, how can I know if you have tools or not? You go walk in most churches and ask a congregation by show of hands how many own a copy of Bible Works or E-Sword (or another similar program) and the amount of hands that go up will be FAR less then the hands that don't. So, I innocently mention to you, not knowing whether your hand would have been up or not, to use certain tools to ascertain the answer you seek. This was done not in malice Chal, not to make myself look like >>I<< am privy to something that you are not, but to help you. Apparently you don't need that help, and I will remember that from this time forward. But I had no way to know you didn't need the help, so I offered some. I am VERY sorry I did so now.

Ken

chal
Nov 20th 2008, 01:00 PM
Chal, the trouble with message boards, e-mail, the internet in general, is that "tone" is not always represented in one's written word. I am not sure if I took what you said wrong, you me, or both.

I am very particular in what I say as I understand the implications of words. So when I said I don't know you, knew nothing about you...which is true, how can I know if you have tools or not? You go walk in most churches and ask a congregation by show of hands how many own a copy of Bible Works or E-Sword (or another similar program) and the amount of hands that go up will be FAR less then the hands that don't. So, I innocently mention to you, not knowing whether your hand would have been up or not, to use certain tools to ascertain the answer you seek. This was done not in malice Chal, not to make myself look like >>I<< am privy to something that you are not, but to help you. Apparently you don't need that help, and I will remember that from this time forward. But I had no way to know you didn't need the help, so I offered some. I am VERY sorry I did so now.

Ken

chal> I didn't take offense from anything you said in your posts, nor did I say that you posted in malice. If I thought you had posted in malice, I probably would have just bowed out of the discussion, because that kind of thread usually goes in a downward spiral. When I feel I am being misunderstood, I like to clarify my position, which is what I did.

To avoid taking the thread off topic, feel free to PM me if you have anything more to say concerning this.

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 01:21 PM
No need to PM you...I think the tone was misunderstood, we are beyond that, back to the discussion.

I will go back and grab your verses and take them with me during our study. I will post whatever we figure out and we can discuss them then.

Peace to you.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 22nd 2008, 09:06 AM
Greetings Chal. We had an opportunity to discuss a curse being passed on tonight, so I thought I would share what we learned while it was still fresh.

Exo 20:5 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;

Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

From these two examples, we see that iniquity by a father can be passed on to his children, and theirs, for 3 or 4 generations. This doesn’t seem fair of course, and, it isn’t! The curse can be broken when righteousness replaces unrighteousness. In other words, let’s say you had a father who broke Torah at every turn, his sin plainly evident. This sin would indeed be passed on…. but even though YHWH says it can last 3 or 4 generations, there is a stipulation. If the father is a sinner and the son sees what his father has done and repents, instead does the will of YHWH, the curse ends there. For example:

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Now, for the full context I recommend reading all of Ezekiel 18. Verse 20 here kind of sums it up though.

We did locate other curses, one that was to last 10 generations. But that curse had nothing to do with salvation, the iniquity caused YHWH to ban them from the Temple for 10 generations…but they were still considered His people.

I hope this helps some.

Peace and blessings.
Ken

chal
Nov 22nd 2008, 11:23 AM
chal> I think it's important to keep it in context. The text is not about sin in general, but about a particular kind of sin, idolatry. The iniquity or sin of the fathers that is being addressed is idolatry. If there is another passage that addresses sin in general in this manner or another type of sin, then I believe we should present them and discuss them one at a time.

It's not hard for me to see how it may be hard for a child being raised in such a tradition may have a hard time breaking away from it. If he continues in the sin (idolatry) of his father, then the iniquity (idolatry) of his father has been "visited on him." The very next verse shows that if he keeps the commandments of God, that he will be shown mercy. Nowhere does it say that God will make an innocent child pay for the sin of his father. It says the sin (itself) will be visited upon him, not the penalty for a sin he did not commit.

Exodus 20:5 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;

Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The passage doesn't end with a sin being passed on to an innocent individual and this individual paying for a sin that he didn't commit.

I don't see anything in this passage relating to OT vrs NT, or prophecy concerning a change in how God will deal with sin.
Exodus 20:5 is not in isolation to the rest of the Bible and should not be read that way. The very next verse speaks of God's mercy and the rest of the chapter is instructions on how to avoid that "visiting of iniquity."

However, we can't very well dismiss;

"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

It's there. Call it a "generational curse," or a "visiting of the iniquity of the fathers."

We don't need to make it go away. We don't need to invoke the NT to overcome the OT. The testaments are not at war with each other. They are two sides of one coin. We just need to understand it in context.

The point you make here;


kerank> If the father is a sinner and the son sees what his father has done and repents, instead does the will of YHWH, the curse ends there. For example:is crucial to understanding it.

I'm not sure what your point is here;


kerank> We did locate other curses, one that was to last 10 generations. But that curse had nothing to do with salvationchal> The OP was;


nettiel> blood line
ive been studying alot about the bloodline, satan cant cross the blood line.i would like to learn more about praying the bloodline over my body,family.home,if you pray the bloodline or just want to talk im here:hug:
.. concerning someone wanting to learn about praying. I tried to address this earlier (post # 11), but the thread got bogged down in disagreements on interpretation. This can easily happen on the forums, but perhaps we could address the OP as well. Perhaps the OP could clarify exactly what was meant by "praying the bloodline."

kenrank
Nov 23rd 2008, 04:43 AM
Chal>> We don't need to make it go away. We don't need to invoke the NT to overcome the OT. The testaments are not at war with each other. They are two sides of one coin. We just need to understand it in context.

Ken>>Above is a brilliant point. There is no "new" testament with the Tanach.

Chal>>I'm not sure what your point is here;

Ken>>When sin is done by a father, the curse of it can be passed down to 3 or 4 generations "unless" those of the next generation break away from the anti-Torah practices of their father. Say I sin against YHWH in an intentional way...the iniquity will be passed down through my seed for 3 or 4 generations. However, my son...who is a recipient of my iniquity, grows into an adult, sees the error of my way, and repents (turns away from) and goes back to living according to the righteousness of YHWH. My son then, breaks the curse and is now not accountable for what I did. Had he NOT repented, the curse would continue to his sons, and theirs!

I hope that explains it better...as I see it anyway.

Now, in a sense, these Deut. verses do not conflict with what Messiah did. Adam's sin, the curse of it, continues through every generation and does not end "until" one turns away from whatever none God way there are in and turns to Messiah. That doesn't save his previous generation, nor does it save the next.

Peace.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 23rd 2008, 04:46 AM
Chal>> We don't need to make it go away. We don't need to invoke the NT to overcome the OT. The testaments are not at war with each other. They are two sides of one coin. We just need to understand it in context.

Ken>>Above is a brilliant point. There is no "new" testament with the Tanach.

Ooops....I meant to say "no "new" testament withOUT the Tanch." :-)
Ken

chal
Nov 23rd 2008, 07:03 PM
Chal>> We don't need to make it go away. We don't need to invoke the NT to overcome the OT. The testaments are not at war with each other. They are two sides of one coin. We just need to understand it in context.

Ken>>Above is a brilliant point. There is no "new" testament with the Tanach.

Ooops....I meant to say "no "new" testament withOUT the Tanch." :-)
Ken

chal> Amen! In the Old Covenant (or testament), we were introduced to the law

Gal 3: 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And the New Covenant introduced faith.

An Analogy; I am no longer subject to my high school teachers, or under any obligation to obey their instructions, but I may be better served by my experience in their classes, if I try to consider what they taught me, rather than disregard it all because I am no longer subject to obey them.

kenrank
Nov 24th 2008, 03:09 AM
chal> Amen! In the Old Covenant (or testament), we were introduced to the law
An Analogy; I am no longer subject to my high school teachers, or under any obligation to obey their instructions, but I may be better served by my experience in their classes, if I try to consider what they taught me, rather than disregard it all because I am no longer subject to obey them.

>>Don't take this as condecension, it is not! Just hear me out...the school master taught you, but what was taught remains, even if the teacher does not.

Messiah said that as long as earth and heaven were here, so would every punctuation mark or letter of the law. He went on to say that those who taught and did the law would be called great in the kingdom, while those who didn't do or taught against the law, would be called the least. Finally, he said he did NOT come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

Many believe his actions did away with the law. But if that is so, he destroyed it despite his claims above. ANY change to it is destroying it. God used terms in relation to His law like, everlasting, eternal, perpetual. Did he mean that or not, that's the question? I have a different perspective that has been developing for the last 8 years. May I share it?

When Adam sinned, the result was death. Sin = death. This was passed on to all who follow, our destiny without intervention was death.

The opposite then, is also true. To overcome this curse, one not only had to be born with no sin, he had to live his life without sinning in ANY way against Torah. Messiah did this, and this is what defeated death. So sinlessNESS = LIFE. This is how he fulfilled the Law.

See, I believe that Torah was set in place for God's people to live their lives by. But man is incapable in his current state to do this. So with the inherited sin from Adam, and man's inability to overcome sin because he is by nature a sinner, one had to come and undo what was done. This action did not do away with the will of YHWH for His people...it did not do away with commands said to be everlasting (remember, God doesn't change), it did accomplish on our behalf what we could not do. And remember, Torah is what is written on the hearts of those when the work is complete in the new covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34)

I keep Torah Chal. But I do so knowing I won't be perfect and that it does NOT save. Only Messiah's actions give me life....through grace by faith and not of anything I can do. But I recognized some time ago that when we come in faith we are then expected to be obediant to YHWH. This is why John wrote, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." It is why Messiah himself said, in addition to what I wrote in the first paragraph, that, "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." In context with the rest of scripture, we know keeping the commands do not bring salvation...but once you are his, you'll keep them. And like John said, they are not grievous, David went as far as calling Torah a delight. A far cry from the the burdenous state so many see it as today!

You know what I found really interesting last week at our assembly. Our pastor (for lack of a better word) who is fluent in Hebrew said that the 10 commands are not as much commands as we may think. Now, ready to grab my bible and kids and run for the door thinking he went all liberal on me....I asked why? He said, "it's more like God just making the statement...'my people won't steal, my people won't kill, my people won't worship false gods, etc.'" It makes sense, because we SHOULD be able to SEE a difference in those who walk with YHWH and who don't. If we love Him, we won't do those things.

Not knowing if I have crossed a line with you and others, I will stop.

Peace to you.
Ken

chal
Nov 24th 2008, 10:30 AM
>>Don't take this as condecension, it is not! Just hear me out...the school master taught you, but what was taught remains, even if the teacher does not.

chal>I think I have addressed this already, but I will go over it again and elaborate;


chal> An Analogy; I am no longer subject to my high school teachers, or under any obligation to obey their instructions, but I may be better served by my experience in their classes, if I try to consider what they taught me, rather than disregard it all because I am no longer subject to obey them. When I graduate from school, I don't go hunt down my professors and kill them, but neither am I under their authority any longer. What they have taught remains, but I am now held responsible to use what they have taught me properly, by standing on their shoulders and looking further and by discernment of my present situation as well as what I have learned from other valid sources. Yah Shua completed the Law. I cannot ignore that either. He gave us a new perspective on how to worship. In spirit and in truth.


Messiah said that as long as earth and heaven were here, so would every punctuation mark or letter of the law. He went on to say that those who taught and did the law would be called great in the kingdom, while those who didn't do or taught against the law, would be called the least. Finally, he said he did NOT come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.2 Cor. 3:2-6 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: [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.
[4] And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: [5] Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; [6] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

chal> The Law has not passed away. It has been completed. Yah Shua was crucified according to the letter of the Law (the letter killeth), but was raised by the Spirit (the spirit giveth life).

The Law is now complete in Him. You can neither keep it outside of Messiah (by washing the outside of the cup), nor can you break it by following Him.


Many believe his actions did away with the law. But if that is so, he destroyed it despite his claims above. ANY change to it is destroying it. God used terms in relation to His law like, everlasting, eternal, perpetual. Did he mean that or not, that's the question? I have a different perspective that has been developing for the last 8 years. May I share it?chal> I don't believe that. Completing something indeed changes it. It changes it from incomplete to complete. You cannot and there is no need to complete something that is already complete. You can't follow the complete Law by re-completing it. You can only follow it by following Yah Shua.


When Adam sinned, the result was death. Sin = death. This was passed on to all who follow, our destiny without intervention was death


The opposite then, is also true. To overcome this curse, one not only had to be born with no sin, he had to live his life without sinning in ANY way against Torah. Messiah did this, and this is what defeated death. So sinlessNESS = LIFE. This is how he fulfilled the Law. See, I believe that Torah was set in place for God's people to live their lives by. But man is incapable in his current state to do this. So with the inherited sin from Adam, and man's inability to overcome sin because he is by nature a sinner, one had to come and undo what was done. This action did not do away with the will of YHWH for His people...it did not do away with commands said to be everlasting (remember, God doesn't change), it did accomplish on our behalf what we could not do. And remember, Torah is what is written on the hearts of those when the work is complete in the new covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34)

I keep Torah Chal. But I do so knowing I won't be perfect and that it does NOT save. Only Messiah's actions give me life....through grace by faith and not of anything I can do. But I recognized some time ago that when we come in faith we are then expected to be obediant to YHWH. This is why John wrote, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." It is why Messiah himself said, in addition to what I wrote in the first paragraph, that, "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." In context with the rest of scripture, we know keeping the commands do not bring salvation...but once you are his, you'll keep them. And like John said, they are not grievous, David went as far as calling Torah a delight. A far cry from the the burdenous state so many see it as today!

You know what I found really interesting last week at our assembly. Our pastor (for lack of a better word) who is fluent in Hebrew said that the 10 commands are not as much commands as we may think. Now, ready to grab my bible and kids and run for the door thinking he went all liberal on me....I asked why? He said, "it's more like God just making the statement...'my people won't steal, my people won't kill, my people won't worship false gods, etc.'" It makes sense, because we SHOULD be able to SEE a difference in those who walk with YHWH and who don't. If we love Him, we won't do those things.

Not knowing if I have crossed a line with you and others, I will stop.

Peace to you.
Ken

chal> I can't speak for the others, but you have crossed no line with me. You are entitled to express your opinion here as everyone else is.

kenrank
Nov 24th 2008, 03:19 PM
Chal, I think we will agree to disagree on this topic. I can share Paul denying he taught against Torah, I can show him taking the vow of a Nazirite (found in Numbers 6, the days of purification), I can even show him telling us to keep the Passover Feast. But, we all can see different things in scripture, I have truly not come on these boards to convince anyone of anything. I am hoping to instill a need to look beyond the surface, which you already do. That sometimes the paradigm we see scripture through can keep us from understanding certain points. I don't believe the Law is dead and gone, but if you don't see it that way, you have every right and I neither judge you for it not look down at it. In the end, I admit, I may be wrong. I will share something with you I just posted on another board because it fits. Again, it is NOT intended to get you to see it my way, rather, look at it as another persepective to be weighed accordingly.

When we hear the term "under the law" we think it means to live a life trying to obey the law. But the term is an idiomatic phrase. When Yahushua resurrected, he pardoned us from the penalty of the law, death. A pardon does not abrogate the laws themselves. Look at it this way, if I was found guilty of tax evasion, I would be guilty under the law. (tried and convicted) But if the Governor pardoned me, the penalty, probably jail time and a fine, would be removed...but I can't go and evade paying taxes after that, the law is still in place. The Law wasn't given at Sinai, it was in place long before. Abraham kept it. (Gen 26:5) It was written at Sinai because Israel was about to become a nation, these laws meant for them to govern by. Which is why each King was commanded to write them in his own handwriting and use them to govern by.

This is why Messiah said he did not come to destroy it. That is earth was still here, so is the Law. It is why Paul denied ever teaching against Torah, why he said to continue keeping the Passover Feast, or even took the vox of a nazirite.

Anyway, I will leave it alone.

Peace.
Ken

9Marksfan
Nov 24th 2008, 03:45 PM
You know what I found really interesting last week at our assembly. Our pastor (for lack of a better word) who is fluent in Hebrew said that the 10 commands are not as much commands as we may think. Now, ready to grab my bible and kids and run for the door thinking he went all liberal on me....I asked why? He said, "it's more like God just making the statement...'my people won't steal, my people won't kill, my people won't worship false gods, etc.'" It makes sense, because we SHOULD be able to SEE a difference in those who walk with YHWH and who don't. If we love Him, we won't do those things.

Amen - a brother at our assembly put it this way - under the Old Covenant "You shall not...." was LAW - under the New Covenant "You shall not...." is a PROMISE!!!!!! :pp

chal
Nov 24th 2008, 05:11 PM
Chal, I think we will agree to disagree on this topic. I can share Paul denying he taught against Torah, I can show him taking the vow of a Nazirite (found in Numbers 6, the days of purification), I can even show him telling us to keep the Passover Feast.

chal> Why don't you present the scripture with an explanation of how it supports your point?


But, we all can see different things in scripture, I have truly not come on these boards to convince anyone of anything. I am hoping to instill a need to look beyond the surface, which you already do. That sometimes the paradigm we see scripture through can keep us from understanding certain points.

chal> There are indeed different points of view on the forums. They are a means of looking beyond the surface and yes we all come into them with a lot of baggage.


I don't believe the Law is dead and gone, but if you don't see it that way, you have every right and I neither judge you for it not look down at it.

chal> I'm sorry that you got that impression from my posts. It's not at all what I said. In fact I said the exact opposite. My entire point was that the Law is not dead and gone. Just like what I learned in school, it's still here. I view it from a different perspective, but that does not take away from it's value as a gift from God and it does not make it go away.


In the end, I admit, I may be wrong. I will share something with you I just posted on another board because it fits. Again, it is NOT intended to get you to see it my way, rather, look at it as another persepective to be weighed accordingly.
chal> We'll we could both/all be wrong, but discussion is a means to help us figure out whether we are or not. I want to "see," it your way. That doesn't mean I want to necessarily agree with you, but I can neither agree or disagree, unless I can first understand (see) it.


When we hear the term "under the law" we think it means to live a life trying to obey the law. But the term is an idiomatic phrase. When Yahushua resurrected, he pardoned us from the penalty of the law, death. A pardon does not abrogate the laws themselves. Look at it this way, if I was found guilty of tax evasion, I would be guilty under the law. (tried and convicted) But if the Governor pardoned me, the penalty, probably jail time and a fine, would be removed...but I can't go and evade paying taxes after that, the law is still in place. The Law wasn't given at Sinai, it was in place long before. Abraham kept it. (Gen 26:5) It was written at Sinai because Israel was about to become a nation, these laws meant for them to govern by. Which is why each King was commanded to write them in his own handwriting and use them to govern by.

This is why Messiah said he did not come to destroy it. That is earth was still here, so is the Law. It is why Paul denied ever teaching against Torah, why he said to continue keeping the Passover Feast, or even took the vox of a nazirite.

Anyway, I will leave it alone.

Peace.chal> I understand the term "under the law, to mean being either obedient to it, or being subject to the penalties thereof.

I also understand that Yah Shua pardoned us from the penalty of the Law, not the lessons (benefits) we are supposed to learn and have learned from it. We are not "under," the benefits. They are not a burden. We are held upright by them.

The Law is not a burden that anyone can hold over us and subjugate us to their interpretation of it. It is a gift from God, meant to teach us.

kenrank
Nov 24th 2008, 09:17 PM
Very frustrating Chal, I submitted this post and it never posted. Lost in internet purgatory I guess. So, round 2.....

Originally Posted by kenrank
Chal, I think we will agree to disagree on this topic. I can share Paul denying he taught against Torah, I can show him taking the vow of a Nazirite (found in Numbers 6, the days of purification), I can even show him telling us to keep the Passover Feast.

chal> Why don't you present the scripture with an explanation of how it supports your point?

Ken>> I will share some of these verses I mentioned about Paul denying he taught against keeping Torah, him saying to keep the Passover, as well as his taking of the vow of a Nazirite as seen in Numbers 6.

1. Paul denies ever teaching against Torah.

Act 24:12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
Act24:14 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:

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.

Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.

>>So Paul denies teaching against the Law, the customs of the Jews, or the people. He also proclaims he worships the God of his fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) believing all things in the Torah and prophets.

2. Paul takes the Torah vow of a Nazirite as seen in Numbers 6.

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

>> When you read the whole chapter in context, it is clear that there were Jews from Asia who were saying Paul was teaching against Torah.

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

>> This is what Paul denied as seen in #1, and the reason he went ahead and took this vow. Not out of pressure as some say who can't see why Paul would do this. But because he didn't teach or walk against Torah. It would be contradictory of him to take this vow, have the intent to make the offering...go through the purification process...and not believe a word of it. That would be a colossal waste of time and be hypocritical at best!

3. Paul says to keep the Feast of Passover.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

>> While I personally believe we should keep all the "perpetual" Feasts as seen in Lev. 23, Passover is the one Christians should really relate to, but sadly do not. Messiah Passed over from death unto life, through his actions we too, "Passover" from death unto life. Regardless, it is clear we are to keep the Feast, not just because it is recorded by Paul but also because it is called perpetual (never ending) in Leviticus23.

4. Ananais, a Torah keeping Messiah believer?

Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Act 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
Act 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
Act 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

>> Ananais is clearly a Messianic believer. First, Messiah had to ordain, and tell him, that Paul was coming and what to do. Second, he calls Paul his "brother." Third, Messiah through Ananais healed Paul's sight. Then, we see Ananais is devout according to Torah. For those who believe the Law is obsolete, why would Messiah, who is not the author of confusion, use a non-believing Law keeper in his quest to bring the Good News to the world?

That's all for now. There are many more examples that we read right over without giving them a second thought. At least, I used to, but now I see them for what they are.

Peace and blessings!
Ken

SIG
Nov 25th 2008, 04:28 AM
A brief intermission for my 2 1/2 cents worth...

Exd 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exd 20:6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

I do not take these two verses literally, but figuratively. Does God mean a literal 3 or 4 generations? How about 2 or 5? I think not.

Rather, these verses are, I believe, a picture of His love vastly outweighing His judgment. He holds His anger for just a little while (symbolized by 3 or 4 generations), but shows mercy for thousands (of generations).

I believe the literal take on these verses has led to the (erroneous) doctrine of generational curses, not only for the Church, but for OT and NT Judaism also:

"Jhn 9:1 And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.
Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

My guess is that the OPer is being taught some form of this erroneous doctrine.

We now return you to your previous programming...

9Marksfan
Nov 25th 2008, 09:48 AM
We're getting a bit derailed here, folks - putting my Mod hat on - could the OP or someone please explain what is meant by "praying the bloodline"? That never seems to have been addressed.

kenrank
Nov 25th 2008, 01:14 PM
Sig>> A brief intermission for my 2 1/2 cents worth...

There has been a bit of deflation lately, I return to you that half penny.

You have a good point....but somewhere in one of my previous posts, I shared a couple of verses that explained God's point. Paraphrasing...

When a father lives a life in sin against God, the curse of his actions would be passed on for 3-4 generations. However, say I am the one fighting against the will of God, my son would inherit my curse. >>BUT<< if my son turns out to not be the knucklehead I was, and turns back to God and lives according to His commands and statutes...the curse ends there. it is no longer passed on.

In a sense, it is the same today. I am born into Adam's sin. Through his bloodline, of which we ALL are, we inherit death. That curse is passed on from me to my son, from my son to his son, and so forth. However, because Yahushua (Jesus) overcame the curse by not sinning at all, and overcame the ultimate penalty by raising from the grave and being the first fruit for all that follow HIM....the curse of death is disolved at each generation that turns their life over to him. So I might not and be lost, my son can and ultimately be saved...but his son could rebel and be lost again.

There is a verse that states that the faith of one can save their whole house...but I am not sure what direction that truly heads yet. I have to meditate on that more and pray for clarification.

Peace.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 25th 2008, 01:21 PM
We're getting a bit derailed here, folks - putting my Mod hat on - could the OP or someone please explain what is meant by "praying the bloodline"? That never seems to have been addressed.

Mostly my fault! You have been a fair moderator, even though you look a lot like a cartoon.

I just searched The Scriptures, KJV, Literal Version, Good News Bible, Young's Literal, and the Analytical Translation, and the word "bloodline" does not appear in the bible. I don't have the ever popular NIV in my bible program, so somebody might want to check it. it would seem though, if it isn't in The Scriptures, the KJV, or the Literal Version....if it is in the NIV or NASB, it is probably a word that could have been better translated as something else.

Peace.
Ken

9Marksfan
Nov 25th 2008, 03:55 PM
Mostly my fault! You have been a fair moderator, even though you look a lot like a cartoon.

:rofl:

In real life too!!!!!! :lol:

SIG
Nov 25th 2008, 11:46 PM
:rofl:

In real life too!!!!!! :lol:

Sorry to hear that.

Though, to be fair, I'm donating my body to science fiction...

ken--I guess I'm encouraging us to avoid formulaic thinking. In the flesh, we of course all inherit Adam's sin. And in the flesh, it is of course natural for children to emulate and so "inherit" their parents' actions--both good and bad. But in the Spirit (and the plan of salvation) anyone can become a new creation at any time. This we have all seen.

(Hmm..hope I didn't just outline a new formula...).

Mysteryman
Nov 26th 2008, 12:13 AM
Let me see if I can touch a little bit on what you all have been talking about. Even though the original OP is not answered as asked. And it might not be that we even have to explain something that is not biblical.

The story with Moses and Pharaoh , "let my people go" .

Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and because of his heart, his sin of a hardened heart fell upon his son, and he died. The plaque that fell upon the house of Pharaoh fell also upon his son, who did no wrong, but received of the wrong of his father.

Maybe we can take this point from this understanding.

Love IN Christ - M M

kenrank
Nov 26th 2008, 12:29 AM
Sig, we are saying the same thing, just using different words. It may be that the Tanach references to the curse passing on "until" one breaks the mold and turns to righteousness, is a type of how all of us are born under the curse of death caused by Adam's sin. We can break free of that curse at anytime by simply doing what Messiah said to do, "repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Mysteryman...welcome to the thread. I think you caught the gist quickly, the "prayer through the bloodline" isn't in scripture. I had posted a couple of days ago, maybe yesterday, that the word, "bloodline" is not in scripture. So I am really not sure how to approach an answer to the question.

Peace
Ken

Mysteryman
Nov 26th 2008, 01:02 AM
Sig, we are saying the same thing, just using different words. It may be that the Tanach references to the curse passing on "until" one breaks the mold and turns to righteousness, is a type of how all of us are born under the curse of death caused by Adam's sin. We can break free of that curse at anytime by simply doing what Messiah said to do, "repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Mysteryman...welcome to the thread. I think you caught the gist quickly, the "prayer through the bloodline" isn't in scripture. I had posted a couple of days ago, maybe yesterday, that the word, "bloodline" is not in scripture. So I am really not sure how to approach an answer to the question.

Peace
Ken
Thank you

If the OP meant "lineage" which also means "geneology" line, then I would more fully understand what that poster meant.

Luke 2:4 has the word "lineage" in the verse , which means parental descent.

I believe that the OP was hinting in this direction, but I can not be absolutely sure.