PDA

View Full Version : Torah "before" Sinai???



bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 02:42 AM
It is often taught, and generally understood, that God gave his Law to Moses at Mt. Sinai and before then, there was no known Law. But is that true? Did his people adhere to the same standards given in writing at Mt. Sinai? Let’s take a look at some pre-Sinai examples of what was given in Torah, and then you draw your own conclusion.

Let’s start with any easy one. Noah took 2 of all unclean animals with him in the Ark, and seven of each of the clean. There was no distinction given to Noah, he just seems to know. Yet, what is clean and what is not wasn’t recorded until Lev. 11.

In Genesis 31 we see Rachel take stolen images and put them on a chair, then she sits on them to hide them. However, it was her time of the month, and she knew she would not be asked to rise. (Gen 31:35 and she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the images.) How did she know that he wouldn’t look where she sat? Her comment about not being able to rise is due to her uncleanliness and the knowledge of being separated from the others during her time. These things weren’t recorded until Lev. 15.

Before Mt. Sinai, in Exd 16, we see the Israelites preparing for the Sabbath on the 6th day, and then ceasing from their works on the 7th. This is not recorded in writing until Exd 20 and then again as a perpetually appointed day in Lev. 23.

In Genesis 26, we see God speak to Isaac and say that, among a few things, he would perform the oath he swore unto his father Abraham, will make his seed multiply, and the nations and earth would be blessed. Why…

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Here are some verses which speak without need of commentary yet are clear in the understanding of things we would have associated with Sinai forward in time:

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Exo 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

Gen 31:54 Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.'

Gen 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

I have to stop due to not wanting this to be too long. There are many more. All of the above “stand alone” verses are pre-Sinai. In addition, we see Adam, Abel, and Cain (Gen. 4) giving offerings to God, Lot calling the actions of those in Sodom wicked (indicating he had to know sodomy was wrong in God’s eyes), even Abimelach, who was born 400 years before Sinai, having an understanding that adultery was wrong in Gen. 20. Noah too, in Genesis 8, builds an alter and sacrifices burnt offerings.

Was there knowledge of Torah before Sinai?


Bosco

My heart's Desire
Mar 19th 2009, 04:25 AM
I'd take it this way, the Law was not given until Moses Yet.... you have a very good question. Don't have time at the moment, but some stuff in the Book of Hebrews comes to my mind at the moment. Hopefully, I can do some thinking get back to this. Good question!

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 04:27 AM
You can travel the world and see tribe after tribe naturally knowing blood is required for sin. You can find this law of conscience, i.e. the Law before Sinai, in Romans 2-3.

Kahtar
Mar 19th 2009, 04:41 AM
Yes, law of conscience. But how does that apply to clean and unclean animals, unclean women in their time of month, etc.?

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 04:43 AM
Doesn't. That would come from Adam or Noah or any other before for that matter.

unclean women?
custom of women hardly says unclean
blood - unclean - because of disease, yes
Could God not have told Adam and Eve or their descendants this?

DaveS
Mar 19th 2009, 04:53 AM
Good observations, Bosco. We know that there was revelation given very early on about sacrifices; what they should consist of, and how they should be offered.

The following two verses at least, show that Cain and Abel had revelation from God concerning sacrifice...

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...

With...

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If Abel offered his sacrifice by faith, and faith comes by hearing the word of God, it's clear that God must have TOLD Abel (and presumably the others) to offer sacrifices.

Also, the fact that God calls Cain's bloodless sacrifice "sin" (Gen.4:7) shows that part of that revelation must have included the TYPE of sacrifice God required.

The statement that "sin lieth at the door" also indicates that there was a PLACE designated to which the sacrifices were to be brought.

It seems that while many new revelations came at Sinai, at least some of the doctrine given there was more a "formalization" of truths already known and practiced among the people of God.

Kahtar
Mar 19th 2009, 04:57 AM
Leviticus 15:19-20
19 And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
Leviticus 15:25
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean.

God telling Adam and Eve? I think you are correct.

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 05:01 AM
and that's supposed to mean????

Kahtar
Mar 19th 2009, 05:02 AM
and that's supposed to mean????Sorry. Thought it was obvious. It was in reply to your 'women not unclean' statement.

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 05:07 AM
I did not say 'women not unclean'. I said 'unclean'. I did not say He did tell someone I said He could have. Rachel's custom (natural course) is not 'unclean'. That's the point. Custom was posted by bosco as if it means unclean and it doesn't. Unclean is seen in Leviticus. I thought that was obvious.

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 05:27 AM
I couldn't share everything with you all. There were MANY more verses I could have shared that also depicted a knowledge of God's Law prior to Sinai. I wanted to be brief enough to be read while still getting the point across. I would like to add something different now, something else to think about.

I started a thread a week or so ago which I named something like "oral law, written law, or both?" (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=160599) In it, I shared verses that made it clear that from Sinai on, the Torah, commandments, and the judgements were to be written down. However, how did they know before Sinai what was sin and what wasn't?

I submit, God himself told them. I believe there was an act of passing some knowledge down, we can even draw a pretty quick and easy line from Abraham back to Adam. But what we also see in scripture is God talking to his people. Consider the verse I shared about why Isaac's seed would multiply, Genesis 26:5. It says that Isaac's seed would multiply because Abraham obeyed God's commands, Laws, statutes, etc. But it starts by saying, "that Abraham obeyed God's voice." Now consider some of these:

To Isaac-
Gen 26:2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said

To Abraham-
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram,

To Adam-
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him,

To Jacob-
Gen 31:3 And the LORD said unto Jacob,

To Noah-
Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah,

To Cain-
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain,

To Rebekkah-
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her,

To Moses-
Exo 3:7 And the LORD said,

Now what was said in these particular verses isn't the point as much as the fact that "God said." Isaac was told his seed would be multiplied "because that Abraham obeyed my voice, kept my charge, my statutes, my commandments, and my laws." In MY opinion, it seems God's commandments (mitsvah) and his laws (Torah) were known before Sinai, and maybe it was known to him (and others) because God told him.

So, just some additional information and again, you draw your own conclusions.

Bosco

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 05:50 AM
I agree. Man was not cut off, separated, or severed from God as theologians would have us believe through what they call 'the fall'. Man has always been in relationship with God. We are His offspring that we might find Him and He is not far from any of us.

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 06:10 AM
I agree. Man was not cut off, separated, or severed from God as theologians would have us believe through what they call 'the fall'. Man has always been in relationship with God. We are His offspring that we might find Him and He is not far from any of us.

I would like to expound on the fact that only certain persons had fellowship with Yah because of their level of righteousness and trust met a standard set by Yah.

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 06:33 AM
Who instigated the fellowship? Who created who in their image? Are you saying God did not instigate the fellowship until after one as righteousness? If so what scripture says so? Or have all sinned? Did they have to be a really bad sinner to not have fellowship or did they just have to eat fruit for it to be sin? Don't we know from scripture that God hardens those that harden their hearts having known the truth and known God choosing to not retain God in their knowledge?

Yes, only some end up having fellowship but those that did not wasn't because God didn't reveal himself or want fellowship.

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 07:24 AM
Who instigated the fellowship? Who created who in their image? Are you saying God did not instigate the fellowship until after one as righteousness? If so what scripture says so? Or have all sinned? Did they have to be a really bad sinner to not have fellowship or did they just have to eat fruit for it to be sin? Don't we know from scripture that God hardens those that harden their hearts having known the truth and known God choosing to not retain God in their knowledge?

Yes, only some end up having fellowship but those that did not wasn't because God didn't reveal himself or want fellowship.

You are assuming my thoughts based on what information, I never said free agency or foreknowledge were not apart of the equation. No one comes to YaH unless He is first drawn by Him. Moses was drawn to the Bush, Abraham was drawn away from his kin. However, nothing of this took away from their faithfulness to a standard Yah set for mankind and that they had the trust and love towards Yah to obey. Yah did what He did with foreknowledge of their response, just as He does with us. I was agreeing with you, but adding that they held to a specific and known standard, and that is simply it. Yah is always the initiator regarding the redemption of mankind.

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 02:29 PM
I tend to agree Manichunter. Man was born into sin and is clearly depicted as doing his own thing from the get go. Only Noah saved, the tower of Babel was all man, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Moses....there has always been a person or group that God preserved his name through until Sinai, or at least, until Moses went and took that group of slaves out of Egypt. Then, God seems to preserve his name in a people through Yahshua, and then again in a people but now through Messiah.

It's neither here nor there though, We all know what we need to do in order to be a part or remain a part of the group through whom his name is revealed.

Blessings.
Bosco

BroRog
Mar 19th 2009, 02:34 PM
Was there knowledge of Torah before Sinai?


Bosco

Paul the Apostle says no. Romans 5.

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 02:37 PM
Paul the Apostle says no. Romans 5.

You answered the question, but did you look first at some of the evidence I provided?

Bosco

PS...Paul also denied ever teaching against the Law of Moses or the custom of the Jews.

Firstfruits
Mar 19th 2009, 02:46 PM
It is often taught, and generally understood, that God gave his Law to Moses at Mt. Sinai and before then, there was no known Law. But is that true? Did his people adhere to the same standards given in writing at Mt. Sinai? Let’s take a look at some pre-Sinai examples of what was given in Torah, and then you draw your own conclusion.

Let’s start with any easy one. Noah took 2 of all unclean animals with him in the Ark, and seven of each of the clean. There was no distinction given to Noah, he just seems to know. Yet, what is clean and what is not wasn’t recorded until Lev. 11.

In Genesis 31 we see Rachel take stolen images and put them on a chair, then she sits on them to hide them. However, it was her time of the month, and she knew she would not be asked to rise. (Gen 31:35 and she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the images.) How did she know that he wouldn’t look where she sat? Her comment about not being able to rise is due to her uncleanliness and the knowledge of being separated from the others during her time. These things weren’t recorded until Lev. 15.

Before Mt. Sinai, in Exd 16, we see the Israelites preparing for the Sabbath on the 6th day, and then ceasing from their works on the 7th. This is not recorded in writing until Exd 20 and then again as a perpetually appointed day in Lev. 23.

In Genesis 26, we see God speak to Isaac and say that, among a few things, he would perform the oath he swore unto his father Abraham, will make his seed multiply, and the nations and earth would be blessed. Why…

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Here are some verses which speak without need of commentary yet are clear in the understanding of things we would have associated with Sinai forward in time:

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Exo 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

Gen 31:54 Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.'

Gen 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

I have to stop due to not wanting this to be too long. There are many more. All of the above “stand alone” verses are pre-Sinai. In addition, we see Adam, Abel, and Cain (Gen. 4) giving offerings to God, Lot calling the actions of those in Sodom wicked (indicating he had to know sodomy was wrong in God’s eyes), even Abimelach, who was born 400 years before Sinai, having an understanding that adultery was wrong in Gen. 20. Noah too, in Genesis 8, builds an alter and sacrifices burnt offerings.

Was there knowledge of Torah before Sinai?


Bosco

With all that you have said it does not change the fact that Gods promise to Abraham was not made through the law or in circumcision.

Gods promise to Abraham was made without the law and without circumcision.

So how does what you have said apply to father Abraham?

God bless you

Firstfruits

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 02:47 PM
Paul the Apostle says no. Romans 5.

Are you talking about this:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Sin was not imputed (people were not held accountable) until there was a law which included judgements. What have I shared with you a number of times, that the jurisdiction to judge and prosecute was not given until Sinai. I personally think the verses I shared in post one make it clear that God's people knew what was and wasn't sin, but it was not inputable (not attributable) until there was a system set in place that allowed for the hearing of dispute, judges to judge it, and penalties for convictions.

Look Rog, here 4 chapters before Sinai, we see:
Exo 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

This is 5 chapters before Sinai:
Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

This is hundreds of years before Sinai:
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.



Bosco

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 02:50 PM
With all that you have said it does not change the fact that Gods promise to Abraham was not made through the law or in circumcision.

Either provide the post that quotes me saying it did, or what is your point?

I have said that Abraham's faith was seen in his works, and I am positive that Genesis 26:1-5 read through from the first verse to the 5th make that abundantly clear.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 19th 2009, 04:00 PM
Either provide the post that quotes me saying it did, or what is your point?

I have said that Abraham's faith was seen in his works, and I am positive that Genesis 26:1-5 read through from the first verse to the 5th make that abundantly clear.

Bosco

But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Isarel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.

Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 04:04 PM
But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Isarel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.

Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

explain how so, kind sir. what would be the conflict of interest. :help: honestly

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 04:09 PM
But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Isarel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.

How so(?), provide scripture please.


Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.

Again, please provide scripture that shows the commandments (mitsvah) and the Laws (Torah) that were kept by Abraham are different than the commandments and Torah Moses wrote down. Are you saying it was ok for Abraham to steal, serve other gods, committ adultery, make idols? The first post in this thread provides many examples that what was known as sin as given to Moses, was known as sin before Moses.

I provided the Hebrew words for commandments and Law because they are the same words used in dealing with Moses.

Bosco

Sirus
Mar 19th 2009, 04:20 PM
Is this the Mosaic Law?

Rom 3:19 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.

How so?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

What law is this?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Mosaic? How so?

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 04:28 PM
Is this the Mosaic Law?

Rom 3:19 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.
How so?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
What law is this?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Mosaic? How so?

You know a funny thing to me is making the entire Scripture do actually what it really does. Scripture agrees with itself throughout. Yah's message, revelation, and instructions are consistent. The true revelation is understood when the Spirit puts both what we call new and old together and the joint message is seen. In other words, the new is proven prophectically by old as demonstrated by Yehoshua and others such as Paul. Every lesson taught and symbol was taught and proven by the text from the old. When did and should this equation cease being the means of learning from Yah. I think we do ourselves wrong when we concentrate and learn one half and not have the same understanding of the first half. This has been the single reason for the change in me. My grasp on the lessons, revelations, and function of the first half has lead to the changes in me regarding my faith and identity. If I would have remain a believer that placed more importance upon the second half, then I would have remained the same in understanding and focus.


One thing my mentor makes me do is teach from both the first and second based on the two and three witness method. If I teach from the second half, then I better be able to find it in the first half as well.

Firstfruits
Mar 19th 2009, 04:32 PM
You know a funny thing to me is making the entire Scripture do actually what it really does. Scripture agrees with itself throughout. Yah's message, revelation, and instructions are consistent. The true revelation is understood when the Spirit puts both what we call new and old together and the joint message is seen. In other words, the new is proven prophectically by old as demonstrated by Yehoshua and others such as Paul. Every lesson taught and symbol was taught and proven by the text from the old. When did and should this equation cease being the means of learning from Yah. I think we do ourselves wrong when we concentrate and learn one half and not have the same understanding of the first half. This has been the single reason for the change in me. My grasp on the lessons, revelations, and function of the first half has lead to the changes in me regarding my faith and identity. If I would have remain a believer that placed more importance upon the second half, then I would have remained the same in understanding and focus.

With regards to the following I did not seem to see an answer to the questions;

Originally Posted by Sirus http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2017811#post2017811)
Is this the Mosaic Law?
Rom 3:19 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.
How so?
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
What law is this?
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Mosaic? How so?

What say you?

God bless!

Firstfruits

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 04:43 PM
Paul the Apostle says no. Romans 5.

Rom 5:13
(13) Sin was indeed present in the world before Torah was given, but sin is not counted as such when there is no Torah.


Perhaps not in fullness, but God says Noah was righteous for his time. Also, the time wasn't right for a nation and a 'consititution' as some elements of Torah demands a correctly set up theistic nation to be rightfully observed. What it means is that Noah had a partial revealation of Torah, what was right for his time.


In this age, we not only have Torah, but an Example of how to walk it out.
What's our excuse?

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 04:43 PM
With regards to the following I did not seem to see an answer to the questions;

Originally Posted by Sirus http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2017811#post2017811)
Is this the Mosaic Law?

Rom 3:19 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.

How so?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

What law is this?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Mosaic? How so?

What say you?

God bless!

Firstfruits

I made no attempt to answer, as it grieved me in another area. I have answered guestions like this before. Especially when we did the group study of Romans way back through Project Peter. It sort of like an endless circle until other things get in the way, like what I said and you ignored. We have to come into agreement about the means and method of learning before we grasp common revelations. At least that is the Spirit's voice to me.

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 04:51 PM
With regards to the following I did not seem to see an answer to the questions;

Originally Posted by Sirus http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2017811#post2017811)
Is this the Mosaic Law?

Rom 3:19 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.

How so?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

What law is this?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Mosaic? How so?

What say you?

God bless!

Firstfruits

And I see you have taken the time to point out that you do not believe Manichunter has answered Sirius' question, but you have not taken the time to answer the 2 or 3 questions I have asked you. So, what say you?

Bosco

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 04:53 PM
I made no attempt to answer, as it grieved me in another area. I have answered guestions like this before. Especially when we did the group study of Romans way back through Project Peter. It sort of like an endless circle until other things get in the way, like what I said and you ignored. We have to come into agreement about the means and method of learning before we grasp common revelations. At least that is the Spirit's voice to me.

Amen, I find myself with the same feeling. I am asked a question, I answer using scripture, we go on to the next question, only to go full circle within a week where I find myself answering the the first question again in response to the same person who asked it the first time.

Bosco

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 05:38 PM
I can't tell you how many time's I've had to deal with Peter and the sheet or the hand washing thing....:rolleyes:

I finally decided to copy and paste my response to save on CTS.

Emanate
Mar 19th 2009, 06:14 PM
Amen, I find myself with the same feeling. I am asked a question, I answer using scripture, we go on to the next question, only to go full circle within a week where I find myself answering the the first question again in response to the same person who asked it the first time.


Some folks refuse to accept pro Law answers and continuously ask the same questions in hopes we will eventually answer incorretly and trip us up. That is my take on it.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 06:20 PM
Some folks refuse to accept pro Law answers and continuously ask the same questions in hopes we will eventually answer incorretly and trip us up. That is my take on it.

That's why the copy and paste function comes in so handy!

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 06:31 PM
Some folks refuse to accept pro Law answers and continuously ask the same questions in hopes we will eventually answer incorretly and trip us up. That is my take on it.

I agree, but after answering the same question the same way 20 times, you would think they would either ignore us or actually stop and take a look at what we have said.

This thread was inspired by a poster who asked the same questions over and over and kept saying there was no law before Sinai. So I make the thread, and I am back to answering the same questions again, despite the evidence right there. Oh well, I smile and move on. No grudges, I am here only to share my persepctive and glean new understanding from others. I want to learn as much as I can about God, and accept it, even if it flys in the face of what I now believe!

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 06:41 PM
Some folks refuse to accept pro Law answers and continuously ask the same questions in hopes we will eventually answer incorretly and trip us up. That is my take on it.

Is it also because sometimes they have no legitimate come back to refute the exposed knowledge and potential revelation.

I said earlier that I only came to the point of receiving the illumination after understanding the wholeness Scripture. I came to understand that the first half contained half the revelation and the other half was in the later half.

I could not depend on the later half of scripture as more relevant than the first half. In doing so, I had to answer a lot of questions that challenged traditional beliefs.


Ex- the first half prophetically says that Yahweh would return to Israel and Judah and renew His covenant with them and put His Spirit in them and make them keep His commandments and instructions (torah). Then I had to have answers for when did he return and fulfill this prophesy. How did this passage affect and impact me as a gentile. How does this passage agree with the text from post Messiah coming. How do I reconcile the text inspired upon Paul that the earlier prophetic text had come to past with the coming of the Messiah to Israel and Judah. I knew that I had received the Spirit as well within me. What, how, and who questions continued to challenge my religious mental beliefs and traditional prospectives. Finally it was the Spirit itself that put it all together.

Wow, the light lit my understanding the my spirit was filled with joy. I was a part of a promised and prophetic spiritual kingdom of Yahweh's Sons. The big picture was the entire text consumed in its entirety and respected as a complete whole, take it or leave it as it is. If I continued to do otherwise, then I remained outside of the complete understanding and illumination Yahweh so desire for me.

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 06:53 PM
I want to learn as much as I can about God, and accept it, even if it flys in the face of what I now believe!



Ah there ya go, hitting the perverbial nail, we all are stuck in a belief of one form or another and just don't want to give them up. :P Since we all believe we are led by the Spirit, what it is we do believe must be right since we can take scriptures and back them up. Some I talk with still don't have an understanding that what was up for 'reproof and instruction' is the OT. Some of us want not to have to follow anything at all since all was 'nailed' and put away. There is so much confusion about the law, the covenants and all of that. You and others have done a good job of putting it all out there. Its hard to let go of something we have held so close and dear to us, right or wrong, and start that walk in what we have learned. I know for myself letting go of some preconceived beliefs was hard but the joy and yes reward I have gotten in my life is something I just can't even put into words.

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 07:00 PM
Ah there ya go, hitting the perverbial nail, we all are stuck in a belief of one form or another and just don't want to give them up. :P Since we all believe we are led by the Spirit, what it is we do believe must be right since we can take scriptures and back them up. Some I talk with still don't have an understanding that what was up for 'reproof and instruction' is the OT. Some of us want not to have to follow anything at all since all was 'nailed' and put away. There is so much confusion about the law, the covenants and all of that. You and others have done a good job of putting it all out there. Its hard to let go of something we have held so close and dear to us, right or wrong, and start that walk in what we have learned. I know for myself letting go of some preconceived beliefs was hard but the joy and yes reward I have gotten in my life is something I just can't even put into words.

Funny that you mention this, because I was about to study this subject and possibly start a thread concerning the want of freedom from torah. What is the motive, intent, and purpose for being free of torah. How has confusion done its part to dilute and corrupt the gospel of the kingdom.

bosco
Mar 19th 2009, 07:10 PM
Ah there ya go, hitting the perverbial nail, we all are stuck in a belief of one form or another and just don't want to give them up. :P Since we all believe we are led by the Spirit, what it is we do believe must be right since we can take scriptures and back them up. Some I talk with still don't have an understanding that what was up for 'reproof and instruction' is the OT. Some of us want not to have to follow anything at all since all was 'nailed' and put away. There is so much confusion about the law, the covenants and all of that. You and others have done a good job of putting it all out there. Its hard to let go of something we have held so close and dear to us, right or wrong, and start that walk in what we have learned. I know for myself letting go of some preconceived beliefs was hard but the joy and yes reward I have gotten in my life is something I just can't even put into words.

Sissy, letting go of some of the doctrines I believed before was some of the hardest things I have ever done in my life. In fact, while I viewed believing in Messiah as a step out in faith, the feeling I had later of accepting things I was taught otherwise about, to me, was as much an act of faith as believing in the first place.

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 07:38 PM
Sissy, letting go of some of the doctrines I believed before was some of the hardest things I have ever done in my life. In fact, while I viewed believing in Messiah as a step out in faith, the feeling I had later of accepting things I was taught otherwise about, to me, was as much an act of faith as believing in the first place.

Bosco


I had the opposite effect somewhat. I was a wonderer. I was raised in a traditional Baptist church, but I myself bounced around from denomination to denomination rather easy even in my youth. My mother was the same, so I followed in her manner. However, most others Baptist in my circles looked down on, was suspicious of, or did not want to fellowship with other denominations. Each enclave of denominationalism thought their doctrinal beliefs were more correct than others.

My baptist pastors would panic if the church got a little to sanctified and full of spiritual motion in their view. My pentecostal pastors would get upset if the church did not burst into large displays of spiritual energy. I laugh now............ LOL

So, I did not and have not held to any strong doctrinal beliefs of a denomination that held me captive intellectually. What put me off was the open displays of hypocrisy, lack of power evident in their life over carnality, and excusing of legitimate questions people had that they refuse to answer.

Hence, I was a skeptic in the religion I was raised in by observation.

I later turned to Islam, because I viewed them as more honest about their religion than Christians. I did not openly see all of the division, lack of character, and self centeredness as I had in my youth in regards to the churches I attended and Christians I knew. The one acception being one single pastor, Pastor Watson, who live what he taught and did not try to excuse hard questions. When my mother asked him about the Sabbath even when I was in my teens he said that the Sabbath was still legit, had not been changed to Sunday, and it was still okay to observe. He himself did not cooperately observe it, but he respected it. He died in the 80's, and the church fell back into the religious norm.

Anyway, I was born from above at twenty one and I have never looked backwards towards tradition. I want truth at all expense to my carnality. I lived as such before my salvation, and I cannot help but do the same now.

I do this by not holding to or settling for anything that is a belief without also being a spiritual conviction as well. In other words it has to bear witness with my spiritual man as well as it pertains to character and sanctification.

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 08:13 PM
Funny that you mention this, because I was about to study this subject and possibly start a thread concerning the want of freedom from torah. What is the motive, intent, and purpose for being free of torah. How has confusion done its part to dilute and corrupt the gospel of the kingdom.

So many see torah, law, covenant, etc. as legalism or having to act out the law. Some see the torah as somehow just a Jewish idea or way of life. Too many see Moses as having been the author of torah/law/covenants when even in Acts 7 Moses received the living oracles from God. Heck even the Israelites after hearing God's own voice giving them the commandments didn't want to be obey either. Confusion always comes in when we all read the scripture and read into it what we think we are being led to believe and view as gospel. We are all guilty of that. For me I don't want to be free from God, Hiw Word and His Love, I spent far too much of my life doing just that.

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 08:22 PM
Sissy, letting go of some of the doctrines I believed before was some of the hardest things I have ever done in my life. In fact, while I viewed believing in Messiah as a step out in faith, the feeling I had later of accepting things I was taught otherwise about, to me, was as much an act of faith as believing in the first place.

Bosco

I grew up in a church and when I hit my teens I did everything I could do to get out of going and ended up doing just. I then proceeded to do just what I wanted just like so many of us. I have spent the last 7 years trying to undo the things I thought I knew and fighting what I did learn. My husband of 20 odd years came out of Armstrongs wwcog who had to let go of a lot of what he was taught also. The very first thing I had to learn not to fight with God about was the sabbath. Its much easier to do just what I wanted to do on the sabbath ya know how it is. :D The last few years of accepting what I have been shown is well there is just not enough adjectives to express the feelings.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 08:22 PM
So many see torah, law, covenant, etc. as legalism or having to act out the law. Some see the torah as somehow just a Jewish idea or way of life. Too many see Moses as having been the author of torah/law/covenants when even in Acts 7 Moses received the living oracles from God. Heck even the Israelites after hearing God's own voice giving them the commandments didn't want to be obey either. Confusion always comes in when we all read the scripture and read into it what we think we are being led to believe and view as gospel. We are all guilty of that. For me I don't want to be free from God, Hiw Word and His Love, I spent far too much of my life doing just that.

Actually I think this replacement theological worldview is pounded into us by man made precepts. How easily we accept the precepts of man, but reject the righteous actions God asks of us.

The blood of Yeshua was never meant to be cheapened in this manner, to be used as a cover to the rejection of those commands that we don't feel like doing. It truely saddens me..

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 08:32 PM
Actually I think this replacement theological worldview is pounded into us by man made precepts. How easily we accept the precepts of man, but reject the righteous actions God asks of us.

The blood of Yeshua was never meant to be cheapened in this manner. It truely saddens me.

The doctrines of man, unless we all examine what it is we believe and why none of us will truly know the whys of why we believe and not everyone is willing to do that. Steadfast prayer with an open heart and mind is truly a gift from God, its the listening we all have problems with. Man certainly is a stubborn hardheaded creation. I echo your sentiments regarding Christs blood and it should sadden all of us.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 08:44 PM
The doctrines of man, unless we all examine what it is we believe and why none of us will truly know the whys of why we believe and not everyone is willing to do that. Steadfast prayer with an open heart and mind is truly a gift from God, its the listening we all have problems with. Man certainly is a stubborn hardheaded creation. I echo your sentiments regarding Christs blood and it should sadden all of us.

Here's the rub: I know from personal experience that steadfast prayer - or even fasting and prayer while in God's Word with an open heart with all preconceptions and man's precepts laid aside actually works. The relationship and fellowship I've experienced with God in these times are almost inexplicable. God will show you the way, but you have to trust Him above man's religious dogma and the open or veiled threat of persecution / condemnation from your own brethren.
Peter said it pretty well, and in much more dire straits:

Act 5:29
(29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

BroRog
Mar 19th 2009, 08:45 PM
Sin was not imputed (people were not held accountable) until there was a law which included judgements. What have I shared with you a number of times, that the jurisdiction to judge and prosecute was not given until Sinai.

You are using terms like "law" and "commandments" synonymously, when they are not quite the same thing.

God commanded Abraham to move from his home in Ur, to "a land that I will show you." God told Noah to build an ark. These aren't laws; these are commandments. There is no law that says we are required to build an ark or move to the Promised Land. These commandments are specific and unique to Abraham and Noah. They don't apply universally to each and every human being.

A law, on the other hand, is a rule that is imposed and enforced by an authority, a court or a judge for instance. And the laws apply to everyone in the community, and are not unique or specific to an individual.

Our challenge is this. We have no account of God giving laws to anyone prior to Sinai. We have statements, given in Hebrew and translated into English that certain people such as Abraham obeyed "laws", but I have no idea if the English word translated "laws" refers to court enforced rules or something else. And even if Abraham obeyed a set of laws, we have no Biblical evidence that the laws Abraham would have obeyed are the same laws that Moses gave Israel.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 08:49 PM
So God changes His mind willy-nilly from one person/group to the next? What kind of faithfullness is that? I would have no hope in a god who couldn't keep his promises, or mean 'eternal' when he says 'eternal'.

Nope. God is steadfast.

And just to be real clear, it's God's Word that Moses was the messenger of, not some Jewish dogma.

djh22
Mar 19th 2009, 09:10 PM
Well done bosco,
These laws are commonly known to Rabbi's as sheva mitsvos B'nei Noach - seven laws for the children of Noah.
In actual fact they relate to rather ambiguous laws given to Adam and Noah -

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Noahide_Laws



God bless.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 09:21 PM
whew. that eating the limb of a live animal one is rather harsh.

Most Jews, even some Messianic Jews believe Torah is just for them. I think that's rather rude and exclusive. Share God's gifts and treasures I say. Share.

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 09:26 PM
Our challenge is this. We have no account of God giving laws to anyone prior to Sinai. We have statements, given in Hebrew and translated into English that certain people such as Abraham obeyed "laws", but I have no idea if the English word translated "laws" refers to court enforced rules or something else. And even if Abraham obeyed a set of laws, we have no Biblical evidence that the laws Abraham would have obeyed are the same laws that Moses gave Israel.

The thing is Moses didn't give those laws to the people God did, Moses was His instrument. It does seem there were laws in place before Sinai otherwise why would the scriptures say that Abraham 'kept my requirements [mismarti], my commands [miswotay], my decrees [huqqotay] and my laws [wetorotay] or in the kjv Gen. 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statues, and My laws." It seems also that Adam and Eve were punished for breaking the 10th and 8th commandment, coveting and stealing as well as the 5th for not honoring their parent. Its already been pointed out I think, that Cain sinned by killing his brother, a violation of the God's laws and was punished. Why would God in the scriptures ask how long they were going to refuse to keep His laws and commandments. Also what set aside the Israelites in Egypt besides being slaves, perhaps some of the ways the Egyptians set them apart was because they were keeping laws passed down from Noah and passed down through out the generations.

BroRog
Mar 19th 2009, 09:34 PM
So God changes His mind willy-nilly from one person/group to the next? What kind of faithfullness is that? I would have no hope in a god who couldn't keep his promises, or mean 'eternal' when he says 'eternal'.

Nope. God is steadfast.

And just to be real clear, it's God's Word that Moses was the messenger of, not some Jewish dogma.

Your argument is lost on me. God is eternal, yes. And what do you make of that? God is also a person with an agenda, purposes, and plans, working those plans out in history. And we are human beings, not eternal, but living out our lives in history also. So, if the question on the table is "was there a Torah before Sinai", the answer resides in an historical context. God is eternal, yes. But the giving of Torah was an historical event, such that before that moment the Torah had not been available to mankind, and after that moment, it was.

I hate to insult the reader's intelligence by laying things out in such elementary terms. But these discussions get so convoluted at times.

We have conclusive evidence that Moses gave the Torah to Israel during his ministry. We have no conclusive evidence that anyone else had the Torah before then. We have verses that might go either way. But that's it.

BroRog
Mar 19th 2009, 09:53 PM
The thing is Moses didn't give those laws to the people God did, Moses was His instrument. It does seem there were laws in place before Sinai otherwise why would the scriptures say that Abraham 'kept my requirements [mismarti], my commands [miswotay], my decrees [huqqotay] and my laws [wetorotay] or in the kjv Gen. 26:5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statues, and My laws." It seems also that Adam and Eve were punished for breaking the 10th and 8th commandment, coveting and stealing as well as the 5th for not honoring their parent. Its already been pointed out I think, that Cain sinned by killing his brother, a violation of the God's laws and was punished. Why would God in the scriptures ask how long they were going to refuse to keep His laws and commandments. Also what set aside the Israelites in Egypt besides being slaves, perhaps some of the ways the Egyptians set them apart was because they were keeping laws passed down from Noah and passed down through out the generations.

On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were already known and in effect, why did Moses need to go to the mountain top to get a copy? Why did Moses need Holy Spirit filled artisans to construct the tabernacle? Why did Moses need Aaron to instruct the Levites in how to do the sacrifices? Why do the entire books of Levitucus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy read is if Israel was hearing this stuff for the first time?

Why do the NT writers make a distinction between the Laws of Moses and God's law?

Galatians 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator , until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Why does Paul refer to Moses ministry as a "ministry of death in letters engraved on stones"?

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 09:58 PM
Your argument is lost on me. God is eternal, yes. And what do you make of that? God is also a person with an agenda, purposes, and plans, working those plans out in history. And we are human beings, not eternal, but living out our lives in history also. So, if the question on the table is "was there a Torah before Sinai", the answer resides in an historical context. God is eternal, yes. But the giving of Torah was an historical event, such that before that moment the Torah had not been available to mankind, and after that moment, it was.

I hate to insult the reader's intelligence by laying things out in such elementary terms. But these discussions get so convoluted at times.

We have conclusive evidence that Moses gave the Torah to Israel during his ministry. We have no conclusive evidence that anyone else had the Torah before then. We have verses that might go either way. But that's it.


Text in Gen saying that they committed sacrifices prior to Sinai, Abram being held accountable for the sin of bearing false witness to pharaoh, sodom was charged with sexual immorality, Cain was charged with murder, and others are not on the fence speculations. They are precise violations of torah/law, that Yahweh was holding people accountable for. The only thing that was truly missing was a people Yahweh called HIS own.

manichunter
Mar 19th 2009, 10:12 PM
On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were already known and in effect, why did Moses need to go to the mountain top to get a copy? Why did Moses need Holy Spirit filled artisans to construct the tabernacle? Why did Moses need Aaron to instruct the Levites in how to do the sacrifices? Why do the entire books of Levitucus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy read is if Israel was hearing this stuff for the first time?

Why do the NT writers make a distinction between the Laws of Moses and God's law?

Galatians 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator , until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Why does Paul refer to Moses ministry as a "ministry of death in letters engraved on stones"?


The only real answer I or any other believer that follows the complete covenant can give you is asked the Holy Spirit these same questions as you take your time and re-read the first half of the OT with the intent to prove the witness of the NT with the OT, not prove the witness of the OT by the NT. The first revelation is still apart of the total vision and the order of things are just as important to understanding as their mere existence.

The mysteries of Yahweh are learned from front to back, not back to front. Hence, it is why we now say renewed covenant and no longer say new convenant. They do not mean the same and a great deal of misunderstanding can be created from not properly putting that thought back into the cohesion of Scripture and one redemptive vision of Yahweh. The greek word used to express new or renewed is the same word, but it could carry either meaning. However, the thought of the OT prophetic witness gives insight that Yahweh intended to reestablish His covenant with Isreal, not give them a totally new one, but one that took the original one farther regarding our understanding and beyond the grasp of carnality and into spirit.

Now when what is said in the NT is read, the thought is place line upon line with the thoughts of the OT as to find agreement in thought and message. All of the NT writers did this same thing as they established their thoughts by the OT witness and nothing else, to include the refused use of any new thoughts. The including of fables and human reasonings along of the gospel were highly preached and taught against.

mizzdy
Mar 19th 2009, 10:30 PM
On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were already known and in effect, why did Moses need to go to the mountain top to get a copy? Why did Moses need Holy Spirit filled artisans to construct the tabernacle? Why did Moses need Aaron to instruct the Levites in how to do the sacrifices? Why do the entire books of Levitucus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy read is if Israel was hearing this stuff for the first time?

Why do the NT writers make a distinction between the Laws of Moses and God's law?

Galatians 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator , until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Why does Paul refer to Moses ministry as a "ministry of death in letters engraved on stones"?

I am not sure that all of Israel knew what they were doing regarding the laws and just like today many may have questioned over the years why they did what they did. God was taking a whole nation of peoples out of slavery and they needed a concrete written set of rules to govern themselves by with a leader that had a relationship with God. God was taking these people as His own. Why do children need to relearn the laws of classroom conduct every new school year? There seemed to be a priesthood set in place already as demostrated when Abraham gave to Melchizedek so perhaps after being in slavery and taking Egyptian idols for their own gods they lost they own priests. Its my opinion that the letter of the law is a ministry engraved in stones yet Christ now engraves it upon our hearts. It may be that so many have such a negative reaction to the 'law of moses' but not the law of God? It may be a cultural issue also between the Jews of the day and the new group of Messianic Jews or christians. I read thoughout the scriptures that it was God's law and not Moses' law even if the rabbis and leaders called it Moses law.

keck553
Mar 19th 2009, 10:32 PM
Your argument is lost on me. God is eternal, yes. And what do you make of that? God is also a person with an agenda, purposes, and plans, working those plans out in history.

His agenda, plans and purposes are performed with perfection and do not need to be replaced with plan B. That's all I am saying. Progresive revelation means we get awesome insights added to the previous revelations. None of the Noahide laws were 'done away with,' If so, then God is not perfect, and I assure you that He is perfect. That's all I'm trying to contribute here.


And we are human beings, not eternal, but living out our lives in history also. So, if the question on the table is "was there a Torah before Sinai", the answer resides in an historical context. God is eternal, yes. But the giving of Torah was an historical event, such that before that moment the Torah had not been available to mankind, and after that moment, it was.

Not to be nit-picky, but we are eternal. Not the dirt suits of course. That's the quandry for an unbeliever. Whether he/she believes in God or not, they will still have eternal life; their only real choice is to lay up their treasures in heaven and spend it with God or not. As far as your Torah/eternal argument - consider this: Jesus is eternal. He was before the foundation of the earth, but was not available as a the Messiah until a historical moment. That doesn't negate His eternal divine nature, does it?


I hate to insult the reader's intelligence by laying things out in such elementary terms. But these discussions get so convoluted at times.

We're all here to learn. The moment we think we know it all is the moment we are no longer useful.


We have conclusive evidence that Moses gave the Torah to Israel during his ministry. We have no conclusive evidence that anyone else had the Torah before then. We have verses that might go either way. But that's it.

We have conclusive evidence GOD gave Torah through Moses because the Hebrews couldn't endure the Voice of God.

John 1:1 clearly states in the beginning was the D'var (word - D'varim - aka Deuteronomy), along with the clear message that all creation came through Messiah.

The Living Torah is Jesus. And He certainly was before the foundation of the world. You can't have one without the other.

BroRog
Mar 20th 2009, 01:14 AM
Text in Gen saying that they committed sacrifices prior to Sinai, Abram being held accountable for the sin of bearing false witness to pharaoh, sodom was charged with sexual immorality, Cain was charged with murder, and others are not on the fence speculations. They are precise violations of torah/law, that Yahweh was holding people accountable for. The only thing that was truly missing was a people Yahweh called HIS own.

I don't think you will find anyone that will disagree with the fact that murder and false testimony is wrong. But our discussion here is whether these were violations of law or not.

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 01:26 AM
Well done bosco,
These laws are commonly known to Rabbi's as sheva mitsvos B'nei Noach - seven laws for the children of Noah.
In actual fact they relate to rather ambiguous laws given to Adam and Noah -

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Noahide_Laws



God bless.

Thanks DJ. I just read through. I am not a big fan of the Talmud. I did notice that of the 7 laws given to Noah according to Rabbis, most aren't accounted for in scripture (but I don't doubt they were given mind you) and making an alter and sacrificing, something scripture shows us that Noah did, isn't included in the Noahide laws. So, take that for what it is worth.

Peace.
Bosco

BroRog
Mar 20th 2009, 01:31 AM
I am not sure that all of Israel knew what they were doing regarding the laws and just like today many may have questioned over the years why they did what they did. God was taking a whole nation of peoples out of slavery and they needed a concrete written set of rules to govern themselves by with a leader that had a relationship with God. God was taking these people as His own. Why do children need to relearn the laws of classroom conduct every new school year? There seemed to be a priesthood set in place already as demostrated when Abraham gave to Melchizedek so perhaps after being in slavery and taking Egyptian idols for their own gods they lost they own priests. Its my opinion that the letter of the law is a ministry engraved in stones yet Christ now engraves it upon our hearts. It may be that so many have such a negative reaction to the 'law of moses' but not the law of God? It may be a cultural issue also between the Jews of the day and the new group of Messianic Jews or christians. I read thoughout the scriptures that it was God's law and not Moses' law even if the rabbis and leaders called it Moses law.

You raise an interesting point. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus could not be a priest while on earth because the priesthood belongs to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had existed prior to Moses, then why is Aaron the first priest in his line?

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 05:57 AM
You are using terms like "law" and "commandments" synonymously, when they are not quite the same thing.

Mitzvah (commands) and Torah (law/instruction) are most certainly not the same thing, and I have made that exact point to FF repeatedly for a month now.


God commanded Abraham to move from his home in Ur, to "a land that I will show you." God told Noah to build an ark. These aren't laws; these are commandments. There is no law that says we are required to build an ark or move to the Promised Land.

Abraham was told to leave his land, if in your mind that is = to Genesis 26:5 which says he kept God's charge, statutes, commandments, and laws, I have little more I can say.

Noah was told to build an ark, if in your mind that is = to all the law he knew, than I wonder why he built an alter and sacrificed a burnt offering to God?


A law, on the other hand, is a rule that is imposed and enforced by an authority, a court or a judge for instance. And the laws apply to everyone in the community, and are not unique or specific to an individual.

While Torah means law, it just as quickly means direction and instruction. Cain murdered and was banished, but there were no courts in place at the time. God did that himself. Moses was asked BEFORE Sinai how long they would continue NOT keeping God's laws and commands(Torah and Mitzvah, same words used in Genesis 26:5 and in Exodus 20+)...yet there was no judges in place as dictated by Torah.


Our challenge is this. We have no account of God giving laws to anyone prior to Sinai. We have statements, given in Hebrew and translated into English that certain people such as Abraham obeyed "laws", but I have no idea if the English word translated "laws" refers to court enforced rules or something else. And even if Abraham obeyed a set of laws, we have no Biblical evidence that the laws Abraham would have obeyed are the same laws that Moses gave Israel.

But it isn't isolated to Abraham, the use of the word Torah I speak of. Even if you fight through the use of Torah, you have to lesson what Mitzvah (commandments) means, for that word was used a couple of time by God to Moses before Sinai, and in Genesis 26:5 in relation to Abraham. Rog, I deliberately did not include all the verses that included knowledge of Torah prior to Sinai. Do I really need to? You have every right to dismiss the OP, and I would think no less of you, but I believe there is enough scriptural evidence in the OP that is can't go down quietly. In addition, had I included the other 20-30 verses that show a knowledge of sin, Torah, and commandments prior to Sinai, I don't see how it can go down at all. I believe you are faced with information that contradicts your paradigm, and you have to reject the information without due consideration. I understand that, I have been there before, in that exact spot. Just let it ride my brother, this isn't for you right now, maybe never? No reason we should ever come to butting heads over it, I have too much respect for you to allow that.

Blessings!
Bosco

djh22
Mar 20th 2009, 09:34 AM
Thanks DJ. I just read through. I am not a big fan of the Talmud. I did notice that of the 7 laws given to Noah according to Rabbis, most aren't accounted for in scripture (but I don't doubt they were given mind you) and making an alter and sacrificing, something scripture shows us that Noah did, isn't included in the Noahide laws. So, take that for what it is worth.

Peace.
Bosco

Yea I agree, I've quizzed quite a few Rabbi's on the whereabouts of "Noahide laws" in scriptures and none have given me a strait answer yet, except that it's The Rambam's (Rabi Moshe ben Maimoni ( Maimonides) ) interptetation.But then he was one of the greatest Torah scholars I 'spose.


Best.
djh22.

Firstfruits
Mar 20th 2009, 11:16 AM
Here's the rub: I know from personal experience that steadfast prayer - or even fasting and prayer while in God's Word with an open heart with all preconceptions and man's precepts laid aside actually works. The relationship and fellowship I've experienced with God in these times are almost inexplicable. God will show you the way, but you have to trust Him above man's religious dogma and the open or veiled threat of persecution / condemnation from your own brethren.
Peter said it pretty well, and in much more dire straits:

Act 5:29
(29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.


According to the scriptures, what did Jesus command his disciples, with regards to the following, with the understanding that Jesus is God?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Veretax
Mar 20th 2009, 12:34 PM
While man is born with a sin nature now, he was also gifted with a Conscience. The Consequence of eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was to know what was good and what was evil. Yet men up till noah ignored their conscience and were violent etc. even after Noah Sin continued, that's partly why God gave a written law at Sinai.

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 01:51 PM
Yea I agree, I've quizzed quite a few Rabbi's on the whereabouts of "Noahide laws" in scriptures and none have given me a strait answer yet, except that it's The Rambam's (Rabi Moshe ben Maimoni ( Maimonides) ) interptetation.But then he was one of the greatest Torah scholars I 'spose.


Best.
djh22.

I suppose. I think you would enjoy a book I read not long ago, hard to find but well worth reading. It is called "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah." Akiba is the rabbi who really started the whole "oral law" myth, manipulating a few Torah verses to make it look like the the sages/rabbis had authority to add or change scripture. The author does an incredible job of making the point that the Law was always intended by God to be written, no human error that way. If you have an interest in the book, and can't find it, I will loan you mine...on the promise I get it back of course.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 02:01 PM
FF, you wrote: “But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Israel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.”

To which I responded:

“How so (?), provide scripture please.”


You then wrote: “Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.”

To which I responded:
“Again, please provide scripture that shows the commandments (mitsvah) and the Laws (Torah) that were kept by Abraham are different than the commandments and Torah Moses wrote down.”

Can you please directly answer these two questions?

Thank you.
Bosco

Veretax
Mar 20th 2009, 02:17 PM
FF, you wrote: “But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Israel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.”

To which I responded:

“How so (?), provide scripture please.”


You then wrote: “Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.”

To which I responded:
“Again, please provide scripture that shows the commandments (mitsvah) and the Laws (Torah) that were kept by Abraham are different than the commandments and Torah Moses wrote down.”

Can you please directly answer these two questions?

Thank you.
Bosco

First Fruits,

You do know Abraham is recorded as having sinned a few times in the OT?

He lied to Pharoah, and Abimelech. Deceived him that his wife Sarai was his Sister, out of fear. He consented to Sarah's request to have a child by way of Hagar the slave, and then lay with her. (some might argue that may not be sin, but I see nothing in the OT to indicate that Hagar was necessarily viewed as a Spouse in this arrangement.) Many of these things came before God Confirmed the covenant witH Abraham, or through Isaac even. Are we then to believe that because Abraham sinned that he was not saved? I don't agree, it was by faith that Abraham was justified before God.


What was the point of the Law? Paull tells us

Ro 2:12-16 (NKJV)

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Romans 2:12-16 (NKJV)


Ro 2:25-29 (NKJV)

25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Romans 2:25-29 (NKJV)

Ro 3:21-26 (NKJV)

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21-26 (NKJV)


Ro 3:27-31 (NKJV)

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Romans 3:27-31 (NKJV)

Look What Paul says about the promise to Abraham...


Ro 4:13-22 (NKJV)

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Romans 4:13-22 (NKJV)



Ro 5:1-5 (NKJV)

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 5:1-5 (NKJV)


Amen To that last passage!

Emanate
Mar 20th 2009, 02:30 PM
Yea I agree, I've quizzed quite a few Rabbi's on the whereabouts of "Noahide laws" in scriptures and none have given me a strait answer yet, except that it's The Rambam's (Rabi Moshe ben Maimoni ( Maimonides) ) interptetation.But then he was one of the greatest Torah scholars I 'spose.


Best.
djh22.

Greatest scholars of Jewish manipulation of Torah, not Chumash.

keck553
Mar 20th 2009, 03:16 PM
According to the scriptures, what did Jesus command his disciples, with regards to the following, with the understanding that Jesus is God?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Since Jesus is God, He wrote Torah. He said to obey His commandments. What do you think it means?

mizzdy
Mar 20th 2009, 03:23 PM
You raise an interesting point. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus could not be a priest while on earth because the priesthood belongs to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had existed prior to Moses, then why is Aaron the first priest in his line?

We don't know much about Melchizedek just that he was a priest and Abraham gave him his offering and that Christ will/is after the order. It does seem that the priesthoods are different and perhaps it is that a new order of priest were needed for this new burgeoning nation of peoples, one they could relate to one that wasn't forgotten and lost through the generations? God's instructions have always been around, the creation was done by the Word of God and I can see that as instruction in its own form, certainly the tabernacle and temple were going to be new ideas to these people also. God doesn't change that I understand and to me it does seem clear there was laws/torah/commandments from the beginning.

BroRog
Mar 20th 2009, 03:58 PM
Mitzvah (commands) and Torah (law/instruction) are most certainly not the same thing, and I have made that exact point to FF repeatedly for a month now.



Abraham was told to leave his land, if in your mind that is = to Genesis 26:5 which says he kept God's charge, statutes, commandments, and laws, I have little more I can say.

Noah was told to build an ark, if in your mind that is = to all the law he knew, than I wonder why he built an alter and sacrificed a burnt offering to God?



While Torah means law, it just as quickly means direction and instruction. Cain murdered and was banished, but there were no courts in place at the time. God did that himself. Moses was asked BEFORE Sinai how long they would continue NOT keeping God's laws and commands(Torah and Mitzvah, same words used in Genesis 26:5 and in Exodus 20+)...yet there was no judges in place as dictated by Torah.



But it isn't isolated to Abraham, the use of the word Torah I speak of. Even if you fight through the use of Torah, you have to lesson what Mitzvah (commandments) means, for that word was used a couple of time by God to Moses before Sinai, and in Genesis 26:5 in relation to Abraham. Rog, I deliberately did not include all the verses that included knowledge of Torah prior to Sinai. Do I really need to? You have every right to dismiss the OP, and I would think no less of you, but I believe there is enough scriptural evidence in the OP that is can't go down quietly. In addition, had I included the other 20-30 verses that show a knowledge of sin, Torah, and commandments prior to Sinai, I don't see how it can go down at all. I believe you are faced with information that contradicts your paradigm, and you have to reject the information without due consideration. I understand that, I have been there before, in that exact spot. Just let it ride my brother, this isn't for you right now, maybe never? No reason we should ever come to butting heads over it, I have too much respect for you to allow that.

Blessings!
Bosco

I used to have this very exact conversation with my SDA friends who continued to insist that God's laws were in effect prior to Moses. The logical reason for such a claim was the fact that Paul said we are no longer under law but under grace. Paul argues against the idea that we Gentiles are obligated to keep the laws of Moses. Their rebuttal was to say that certain laws predated Moses and that we should keep THOSE.

You and the others are making a similar argument. I have already argued that a person can not keep Torah unless he or she is keeping Leviticus. It now appears that you are attempting to get around that argument by suggesting that the laws YOU keep predated Moses.

Isn't that what this is all about? Aren't you simply trying to justify to yourselves why you do what you do?

Emanate
Mar 20th 2009, 04:09 PM
I used to have this very exact conversation with my SDA friends who continued to insist that God's laws were in effect prior to Moses. The logical reason for such a claim was the fact that Paul said we are no longer under law but under grace. Paul argues against the idea that we Gentiles are obligated to keep the laws of Moses. Their rebuttal was to say that certain laws predated Moses and that we should keep THOSE.

You and the others are making a similar argument. I have already argued that a person can not keep Torah unless he or she is keeping Leviticus. It now appears that you are attempting to get around that argument by suggesting that the laws YOU keep predated Moses.

Isn't that what this is all about? Aren't you simply trying to justify to yourselves why you do what you do?

My justification is an ancient event. I need not worry about any justification outside of that. So your description of showing something from the bible is "an attempt at justification?" There is obvious evidence to support some of the "law of Moses" being in effect before Moses. Now, I would not be one to dare attempt to surmise how much of it actually was. As far as Sabbath, I am amazed at people who hold Sabbath in such disdain that they would not want this delight that reveals the plan of YHWH to all nations. A day of rest being legalism or burden? Right, ok. Rest is legaism. interesting.

keck553
Mar 20th 2009, 04:17 PM
I used to have this very exact conversation with my SDA friends who continued to insist that God's laws were in effect prior to Moses. The logical reason for such a claim was the fact that Paul said we are no longer under law but under grace. Paul argues against the idea that we Gentiles are obligated to keep the laws of Moses. Their rebuttal was to say that certain laws predated Moses and that we should keep THOSE.

You and the others are making a similar argument. I have already argued that a person can not keep Torah unless he or she is keeping Leviticus. It now appears that you are attempting to get around that argument by suggesting that the laws YOU keep predated Moses.

Isn't that what this is all about? Aren't you simply trying to justify to yourselves why you do what you do?

It's a simple as this: I love God, therefore I obey His ETERNAL commandments.

and this:

I could care less about men's religious dogma, or yours or anyone's human judgements when it comes to trusting God. I am justified through faith in Yeshua HaMachiach, and I owe you nor anyone else no other explanaition as to how I serve my Creator. If you think you can be justified and then turn your back on His commandments, than certainly I have the freedom in Him to obey them.

I post here to share what God has done in me. I am one who doesn't deserve anything from Him, yet He gives me more than I even know I want. This is the walk He has me on. Nothing or no person will come between me and God.

BroRog
Mar 20th 2009, 04:42 PM
My justification is an ancient event. I need not worry about any justification outside of that. So your description of showing something from the bible is "an attempt at justification?" There is obvious evidence to support some of the "law of Moses" being in effect before Moses. Now, I would not be one to dare attempt to surmise how much of it actually was. As far as Sabbath, I am amazed at people who hold Sabbath in such disdain that they would not want this delight that reveals the plan of YHWH to all nations. A day of rest being legalism or burden? Right, ok. Rest is legaism. interesting.

To me, legalism and obedience are not the same thing. And so I appreciate your warning and reminder.

The title of this thread asks whether Torah was before Sinai. I thought the common understanding of the term "Torah" indicates the first five books of the Bible. Others use the word to indicate the entire collection of Jewish writings including the oral tradition. In any case, I can't argue that the entire first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures were in existence before Mt. Sinai. In fact, it is clear from the book of Deuteronomy that the people were hearing God's law for the first time. That is, Moses was speaking the words that the Lord himself gave to him, which rules out a reiteration of existing words that God had spoken previously.

If a non-believer were to ask me this same question, I could only defend the idea that God had given mankind a handful of commandments, specifically those found in Genesis 9. I could not defend the idea that the Torah existed prior to Sinai or that other universal laws were in effect.

Paul already answered the question of whether sons of Abraham by faith needed to be circumcised, according to God's commandment to Abraham to circumcised himself and all males in his household and his male servants. Paul says, as you know, that a male Gentile believer does not need to be circumcised and that if that man seeks God's favor on the basis of his being circumcised, Christ is of no benefit to that man.

For this reason, I could not defend the keeping of God's laws based on the argument that certain laws predated Sinai. Paul couldn't and neither can I. If Paul says that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his family and his servants does not apply to me, and that if I did it simply to gain God's approval that I would fall from grace, then I certainly can't argue that Christians must keep any of God's other laws simply on the basis that they predate Sinai.

That's my point.

Emanate
Mar 20th 2009, 04:46 PM
To me, legalism and obedience are not the same thing. And so I appreciate your warning and reminder.

The title of this thread asks whether Torah was before Sinai. I thought the common understanding of the term "Torah" indicates the first five books of the Bible. Others use the word to indicate the entire collection of Jewish writings including the oral tradition. In any case, I can't argue that the entire first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures were in existence before Mt. Sinai. In fact, it is clear from the book of Deuteronomy that the people were hearing God's law for the first time. That is, Moses was speaking the words that the Lord himself gave to him, which rules out a reiteration of existing words that God had spoken previously.

If a non-believer were to ask me this same question, I could only defend the idea that God had given mankind a handful of commandments, specifically those found in Genesis 9. I could not defend the idea that the Torah existed prior to Sinai or that other universal laws were in effect.

Paul already answered the question of whether sons of Abraham by faith needed to be circumcised, according to God's commandment to Abraham to circumcised himself and all males in his household and his male servants. Paul says, as you know, that a male Gentile believer does not need to be circumcised and that if that man seeks God's favor on the basis of his being circumcised, Christ is of no benefit to that man.

For this reason, I could not defend the keeping of God's laws based on the argument that certain laws predated Sinai. Paul couldn't and neither can I. If Paul says that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his family and his servants does not apply to me, and that if I did it simply to gain God's approval that I would fall from grace, then I certainly can't argue that Christians must keep any of God's other laws simply on the basis that they predate Sinai.

That's my point.


I will agree with a statment I believe you made earlier. To what extent Torah commands and laws were known before Sinai, we have no conclusive prove. We can see some of them, but it is only conjecture as to others. I do believe some others must have been. Only a belief though.

BroRog
Mar 20th 2009, 04:53 PM
It's a simple as this: I love God, therefore I obey His ETERNAL commandments.

and this:

I could care less about men's religious dogma, or yours or anyone's human judgements when it comes to trusting God. I am justified through faith in Yeshua HaMachiach, and I owe you nor anyone else no other explanaition as to how I serve my Creator. If you think you can be justified and then turn your back on His commandments, than certainly I have the freedom in Him to obey them.

I post here to share what God has done in me. I am one who doesn't deserve anything from Him, yet He gives me more than I even know I want. This is the walk He has me on. Nothing or no person will come between me and God.

Keck,

I don't believe you when you say you don't care. I think you do care. You care enough to participate in the many discussions we have that center on this topic.

Now, as for God's "eternal" commandments I can only repeat the idea that not all of God's "eternal" commandments apply to everyone. For instance, we read in Genesis 17 God's command that Abraham circumcise the males in his family and among his servants, as a sign of the perpetual covenant God was making with Abraham.

As Abraham is the father of our faith, as Paul suggests in Romans 4, the question is whether we are also obligated to circumcise our males and ourselves too. Paul is quick to say that circumcision is not for us Gentiles and if we receive circumcision with the express purpose to please God and gain his favor we have fallen from grace.

For this reason, as I said to Emanate I can not defend the position that says Christians are obligated to keep those commandments that predate Sinai, especially in light of the fact that Paul's warning was so dire that those who attempted to please God through circumcision had no use for Christ.

keck553
Mar 20th 2009, 05:08 PM
Keck,

I don't believe you when you say you don't care. I think you do care. You care enough to participate in the many discussions we have that center on this topic.

I care only in this way: Man made religious dogma applied to God's Word prevents His children from having the depth of relationship and fellowship that He wants to have with each of us. Yes, it distresses me, and I'm pretty sure it saddens Him. But compassion isn't always dressed in a new-age feel-good response.


Now, as for God's "eternal" commandments I can only repeat the idea that not all of God's "eternal" commandments apply to everyone. For instance, we read in Genesis 17 God's command that Abraham circumcise the males in his family and among his servants, as a sign of the perpetual covenant God was making with Abraham.

You are grafted into the covenant. You can either accept it or reject it, that's your choice. I'm pretty sure you apply at least 25% of Torah to your life, the parts that you or your religious leadership decided pertain to you.. So unless you decide to become completely lawless, you really have no leg to stand on.


As Abraham is the father of our faith, as Paul suggests in Romans 4, the question is whether we are also obligated to circumcise our males and ourselves too. Paul is quick to say that circumcision is not for us Gentiles and if we receive circumcision with the express purpose to please God and gain his favor we have fallen from grace.

You've mischaracterized the teaching. Circumcision is not a path to justification. It is a response.


For this reason, as I said to Emanate I can not defend the position that says Christians are obligated to keep those commandments that predate Sinai, especially in light of the fact that Paul's warning was so dire that those who attempted to please God through circumcision had no use for Christ.

Since your reasoning is faulty in this portion of Scirpture, the argument falls flat.

One other thing: GOD is my God. I worship GOD, not Paul. If my interpretation of Paul contradicts with the teachings of Almighty God, than either Paul is a heretic or I have mischaracterized his writings. And I don't believe for one moment that Paul's a heretic. A house divided can not stand

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 07:24 PM
I used to have this very exact conversation with my SDA friends who continued to insist that God's laws were in effect prior to Moses. The logical reason for such a claim was the fact that Paul said we are no longer under law but under grace. Paul argues against the idea that we Gentiles are obligated to keep the laws of Moses. Their rebuttal was to say that certain laws predated Moses and that we should keep THOSE.

You and the others are making a similar argument. I have already argued that a person can not keep Torah unless he or she is keeping Leviticus. It now appears that you are attempting to get around that argument by suggesting that the laws YOU keep predated Moses.

Isn't that what this is all about? Aren't you simply trying to justify to yourselves why you do what you do?

Not at all, simply trying to shed light where darkness exists. I agree with you, we are not "under the law," the only difference is, you and I define under the law two different ways. Like I said in my past post to you, I could have listed 20-30 other examples of knowledge of Torah and commandments prior to Sinai. Just google "Torah before Sinai" and start reading. If you have no interest, you will not see. If you do, you will see plenty. Is your mind made up, is there room for growth?

I serve God because I love God. I deny certain desires because I believe God is saying in scripture I should. It is about him, not me. If Roger, you serve God with the belief that his eternal Torah is no longer in effect, don't let me or anyone else stand in your way. That is all I will say on the matter.

Blessings.
Bosco

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 07:27 PM
To me, legalism and obedience are not the same thing. And so I appreciate your warning and reminder.

The title of this thread asks whether Torah was before Sinai. I thought the common understanding of the term "Torah" indicates the first five books of the Bible. Others use the word to indicate the entire collection of Jewish writings including the oral tradition. In any case, I can't argue that the entire first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures were in existence before Mt. Sinai. In fact, it is clear from the book of Deuteronomy that the people were hearing God's law for the first time. That is, Moses was speaking the words that the Lord himself gave to him, which rules out a reiteration of existing words that God had spoken previously.

If a non-believer were to ask me this same question, I could only defend the idea that God had given mankind a handful of commandments, specifically those found in Genesis 9. I could not defend the idea that the Torah existed prior to Sinai or that other universal laws were in effect.

Paul already answered the question of whether sons of Abraham by faith needed to be circumcised, according to God's commandment to Abraham to circumcised himself and all males in his household and his male servants. Paul says, as you know, that a male Gentile believer does not need to be circumcised and that if that man seeks God's favor on the basis of his being circumcised, Christ is of no benefit to that man.

For this reason, I could not defend the keeping of God's laws based on the argument that certain laws predated Sinai. Paul couldn't and neither can I. If Paul says that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his family and his servants does not apply to me, and that if I did it simply to gain God's approval that I would fall from grace, then I certainly can't argue that Christians must keep any of God's other laws simply on the basis that they predate Sinai.

That's my point.

Just FYI, I am not aware of the bible itself calling the first 5 books Torah. When use the word I NEVER use it in those terms. I use it in reference to the laws, commands, and or judgements, individually or as a whole. Torah means law, direction, or instruction.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 07:30 PM
Keck,

I don't believe you when you say you don't care. I think you do care. You care enough to participate in the many discussions we have that center on this topic.

Now, as for God's "eternal" commandments I can only repeat the idea that not all of God's "eternal" commandments apply to everyone. For instance, we read in Genesis 17 God's command that Abraham circumcise the males in his family and among his servants, as a sign of the perpetual covenant God was making with Abraham.

As Abraham is the father of our faith, as Paul suggests in Romans 4, the question is whether we are also obligated to circumcise our males and ourselves too. Paul is quick to say that circumcision is not for us Gentiles and if we receive circumcision with the express purpose to please God and gain his favor we have fallen from grace.

For this reason, as I said to Emanate I can not defend the position that says Christians are obligated to keep those commandments that predate Sinai, especially in light of the fact that Paul's warning was so dire that those who attempted to please God through circumcision had no use for Christ.

A good example of why Genesis shouldn't be refered to as Torah. The command for all, which comes in the next two books, calls for a child being circumcised on the 8th day and NEVER as an adult. The Abraham command was for Abraham, just as there were many commands I can list from the NT to individuals that were for those individuals and not the people as a whole.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 20th 2009, 07:32 PM
FF, you wrote: “But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Israel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.”

To which I responded:

“How so (?), provide scripture please.”


You then wrote: “Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.”

To which I responded:
“Again, please provide scripture that shows the commandments (mitsvah) and the Laws (Torah) that were kept by Abraham are different than the commandments and Torah Moses wrote down.”

Can you please directly answer these two questions?

Thank you.
Bosco

First Fruits, I have answered every question you have asked, probably a hundred by now. Can you please address these two?

Thanks.
Bosco

djh22
Mar 20th 2009, 08:30 PM
I suppose. I think you would enjoy a book I read not long ago, hard to find but well worth reading. It is called "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah." Akiba is the rabbi who really started the whole "oral law" myth, manipulating a few Torah verses to make it look like the the sages/rabbis had authority to add or change scripture. The author does an incredible job of making the point that the Law was always intended by God to be written, no human error that way. If you have an interest in the book, and can't find it, I will loan you mine...on the promise I get it back of course.

Bosco

May thanks bosco for the name of the book and the very kind offer of the loan.
I've just ordered a copy from our local library,takes a few weeks to come back in but I'll look forward to the read.

Many thanks again.

Best.
djh.

Sirus
Mar 21st 2009, 01:56 AM
You know a funny thing to me is making the entire Scripture do actually what it really does. Scripture agrees with itself throughout. Yah's message, revelation, and instructions are consistent. The true revelation is understood when the Spirit puts both what we call new and old together and the joint message is seen. In other words, the new is proven prophectically by old as demonstrated by Yehoshua and others such as Paul. Every lesson taught and symbol was taught and proven by the text from the old. When did and should this equation cease being the means of learning from Yah. I think we do ourselves wrong when we concentrate and learn one half and not have the same understanding of the first half. This has been the single reason for the change in me. My grasp on the lessons, revelations, and function of the first half has lead to the changes in me regarding my faith and identity. If I would have remain a believer that placed more importance upon the second half, then I would have remained the same in understanding and focus.


One thing my mentor makes me do is teach from both the first and second based on the two and three witness method. If I teach from the second half, then I better be able to find it in the first half as well.I agree 100%!


Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

It doesn't answer my question nor do I agree with your POV, but I do agree with what you said here. It's a funny thing to me :)

Sirus
Mar 21st 2009, 02:03 AM
Text in Gen saying that they committed sacrifices prior to Sinai, Abram being held accountable for the sin of bearing false witness to pharaoh, sodom was charged with sexual immorality, Cain was charged with murder, and others are not on the fence speculations. They are precise violations of torah/law, that Yahweh was holding people accountable for. The only thing that was truly missing was a people Yahweh called HIS own.The written was added. It reflects the same character and nature of God the conscience bears. The natural reflects the spiritual. This in no way means the written existed before the spiritual, nor the creator of them. So man didn't need it written that blood is required for sin. How does it then being written down prove the written first existed? It doesn't.

Sirus
Mar 21st 2009, 02:13 AM
First Fruits, I have answered every question you have asked, probably a hundred by now. Can you please address these two?

Thanks.
BoscoCan you provide scripture that says they are the same entirely? Of course you can't. For example, before the Mosaic law is there scripture that says Sarah went without the camp that special time of month? Did Abraham observe passover and other feasts? I could technically list 500+ more but you get the point eh?
Lets assume he did. OK fine, then we can only assume because scripture doesn't say it.

bagofseed
Mar 21st 2009, 02:54 AM
Their are natural results of behavior on our nature, like sin and death.

But the "Law" exists as a punitive standard of measure to keep evil in check.

On the natural side we have things like faith and loving God for who He is because we want to. Freedom to love without obligation.

But the written law is associated with slavery, with Hagar and her son and the fearful aspects of Gods wrath displayed at Sinai.
Gal 4

The move from law to grace is the move from slave to child,
from obligation to love from the heart.

Was their Torah before Sinai? No, not in the sense of the law.
Romans 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.

Does sin still exist without the law? Yes.

Jesus satisfied the laws judgment for the sin against all mankind.
Through the cross He put mankind in a place where the law no longer has jurisdiction over us.
Because we have died with Christ.

Stick with the greater glory, which makes the glory of the law by comparison no glory at all.

Veretax
Mar 21st 2009, 03:54 AM
it's my impression having read through the first five books this year, that the law was given for a number of reasons, one of them being that when Israel came into the land, they would no longer be nomadic, but would have specific property assigned to them by inheritance. Given how Large they had grown, it stands to reason that God wanted to keep their society ordered, where before it was perhaps a small family plus its hired help.

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 06:32 AM
May thanks bosco for the name of the book and the very kind offer of the loan.
I've just ordered a copy from our local library,takes a few weeks to come back in but I'll look forward to the read.

Many thanks again.

Best.
djh.

Let me know what you think.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 06:37 AM
Can you provide scripture that says they are the same entirely? Of course you can't. For example, before the Mosaic law is there scripture that says Sarah went without the camp that special time of month? Did Abraham observe passover and other feasts? I could technically list 500+ more but you get the point eh?
Lets assume he did. OK fine, then we can only assume because scripture doesn't say it.

Certain appointed days had yet to have the meaning of that day happen so there would be no knowledge of that day. I am not saying 100% of the Torah was known before Sinai, that would be silly. The judgements alone are unique to Sinai for many reasons. However, serving YHWH only, not making idols, Sabbath, taking his name in vain, murder, theft, etc.....these things were all well known before Sinai as I stated in the OP. And like I stated since, I can list another 20-30 instances of Torah understanding pre-Sinai.

The question was for FF anyway. I have answered a hundred or more questions FF has asked, I seek FF's answers on those two.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 06:43 AM
it's my impression having read through the first five books this year, that the law was given for a number of reasons, one of them being that when Israel came into the land, they would no longer be nomadic, but would have specific property assigned to them by inheritance. Given how Large they had grown, it stands to reason that God wanted to keep their society ordered, where before it was perhaps a small family plus its hired help.

Excellent observation Veretax. It became their constitution of sorts, the judicial system they would live by as a nation. This is why Kings were to write a copy of Torah in their own hand to govern from. It wasn't unique at Sinai, it was compiled at Sinai. It is kind of like the NT. Were the letters and gospels inspired and known by many before the NT was compiled? Of course, yet it would be hundreds of years before that compilation. Torah was clearly know prior to Sinai. Moses asked before Sinai by God, "How long will they not keep my laws and commandments." Abraham said to keep the laws and commands. Unless God has two sets of commandments and Law, they have to be the same.

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 21st 2009, 06:58 AM
I agree 100%!

Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

It doesn't answer my question nor do I agree with your POV, but I do agree with what you said here. It's a funny thing to me :)

now go forth and do as such my friend, find witnesses for your NT centered beliefs.

bagofseed
Mar 21st 2009, 08:09 AM
Excellent observation Veretax. It became their constitution of sorts, the judicial system they would live by as a nation. This is why Kings were to write a copy of Torah in their own hand to govern from. It wasn't unique at Sinai, it was compiled at Sinai. It is kind of like the NT. Were the letters and gospels inspired and known by many before the NT was compiled? Of course, yet it would be hundreds of years before that compilation. Torah was clearly know prior to Sinai. Moses asked before Sinai by God, "How long will they not keep my laws and commandments." Abraham said to keep the laws and commands. Unless God has two sets of commandments and Law, they have to be the same.

Bosco
Could you provide some scripture support for your conclusion?
it was compiled at Sinai?

Firstfruits
Mar 21st 2009, 02:24 PM
Excellent observation Veretax. It became their constitution of sorts, the judicial system they would live by as a nation. This is why Kings were to write a copy of Torah in their own hand to govern from. It wasn't unique at Sinai, it was compiled at Sinai. It is kind of like the NT. Were the letters and gospels inspired and known by many before the NT was compiled? Of course, yet it would be hundreds of years before that compilation. Torah was clearly know prior to Sinai. Moses asked before Sinai by God, "How long will they not keep my laws and commandments." Abraham said to keep the laws and commands. Unless God has two sets of commandments and Law, they have to be the same.

Bosco

So far no one has been able to provide scriptures to show that What God commanded Abraham was the same as he commanded Israel at mount Sinai. Can you supply them if you have them?

Can you also answer why the covenant made with Abraham could not be broken by man whereas the covenant with its commandments given at mount Sinai could and was?

Thanks Bosco,

Firstfruits

BroRog
Mar 21st 2009, 04:14 PM
Just FYI, I am not aware of the bible itself calling the first 5 books Torah. When use the word I NEVER use it in those terms. I use it in reference to the laws, commands, and or judgements, individually or as a whole. Torah means law, direction, or instruction.

Bosco

Well, you bring up a point I wanted to make earlier. I find that as I attempt to communicate my ideas with you and certain folks who agree with you that I am faced with a challenge to decipher various words, which I give one meaning and you give another. The word "Torah" is a case in point. When I read the title of the thread here, I believed the discussion would center around whether the first five books of the Bible were available to folks like Abraham or Noah, since the dictionary definition of "Torah" either refers to the first five books of the Bible or the entire Jewish corpus.

It's very difficult to have a conversation about this topic if we can't decide on a common set of definitions, especially for words like "Jew" and "Israel" and "Torah" and "Church" and "Christian" and etc.

Sirus
Mar 21st 2009, 04:55 PM
I am not saying 100% of the Torah was known before Sinai, that would be silly. The judgements alone are unique to Sinai for many reasons. However, serving YHWH only, not making idols, Sabbath, taking his name in vain, murder, theft, etc.....these things were all well known before Sinai as I stated in the OP. And like I stated since, I can list another 20-30 instances of Torah understanding pre-Sinai.Then what's the point?
The things you cite are law of conscience or natural, and could easily have been verbally passed down. Noah just missed Adam and Seth and would have known Enosh, Kenan, and so on. You need to cite something that is not law of conscience or natural and show it to have existed before Moses. You list;


serving YHWH only
not making idols
taking his name in vain

as if they are different when they are all -serving YHWH only

Sabbath: as someone in relationship with God, work for a month without a day off and see what the Spirit tells you.

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 08:02 PM
Then what's the point?
The things you cite are law of conscience or natural, and could easily have been verbally passed down. Noah just missed Adam and Seth and would have known Enosh, Kenan, and so on. You need to cite something that is not law of conscience or natural and show it to have existed before Moses. You list;


serving YHWH only
not making idols
taking his name in vain
as if they are different when they are all -serving YHWH only

Sabbath: as someone in relationship with God, work for a month without a day off and see what the Spirit tells you.

I listed a few examples to you, in other posts I included the building of alters, burnt sacrifices, and a few other items. I also left out 20-30 other examples in the OP I could have shared but left out due to brevity sake.

Not sure what your point is about Sabbath, but I will practice how I see God speaking in scripture, you are free to do as you feel led, and that is that. I am not debating this, I will discuss it. If you are looking for debate, go elsewhere or look for another.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 08:09 PM
Well, you bring up a point I wanted to make earlier. I find that as I attempt to communicate my ideas with you and certain folks who agree with you that I am faced with a challenge to decipher various words, which I give one meaning and you give another. The word "Torah" is a case in point. When I read the title of the thread here, I believed the discussion would center around whether the first five books of the Bible were available to folks like Abraham or Noah, since the dictionary definition of "Torah" either refers to the first five books of the Bible or the entire Jewish corpus.

It's very difficult to have a conversation about this topic if we can't decide on a common set of definitions, especially for words like "Jew" and "Israel" and "Torah" and "Church" and "Christian" and etc.

Understood. If we have any discussion in the future I will try to use words as you understand them, and will ask for clarification if needed. However, since I am just some guy bending scripture to fit my theology (however you put it) I see little need for any future discussion.

I find is almost humorous that I am seen bending scripture to meet some pre-conceived need in scripture, when just a few years back, I saw scripture exactly as you do today. I didn't want to go in this direction, I fought God over it for almost two years and for a time, didn't go to any type of congregation. In the end, God wins. I have to accept what he says, whether it fits how I see things or not, or move on and join a new religion.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 08:12 PM
Could you provide some scripture support for your conclusion?
it was compiled at Sinai?

Refer to the thread, 'Oral Law, Written law, or both?" for the verses showing it was at Sinai forward that God began to command his Torah to be written. It was from then forward that his people were to use what was written to live by, and it was what the individual Kings were to write a copy of to govern by.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 08:15 PM
So far no one has been able to provide scriptures to show that What God commanded Abraham was the same as he commanded Israel at mount Sinai. Can you supply them if you have them?

Can you also answer why the covenant made with Abraham could not be broken by man whereas the covenant with its commandments given at mount Sinai could and was?

Thanks Bosco,

Firstfruits

Two points FF. First, when the words Mitzvah (commandments) and Torah (Law/instruction) are used in relation to Moses and Sinai AND regarding Abraham in Genesis 26:5, than it isn't me that has to prove they are the same, the words THEMSELVES are already the same carrying the same meaning. God could have chosen OTHER words to describe what he gave Abraham if it differed from what he gave Moses, but he DIDN'T, he used the SAME terms. So it would have to be YOU, who believes that Abraham didn't have what was given to Moses, to show me how the Torah in Gen. 26:5 and the Torah in Exodus 20 are different. It has to be YOU who shows how the Mitzvah of Gen. 26:5 is different than the Mitzvah of Exodus 20.

Second, I will answer no more questions from you until you address the two I have asked you 4 times to answer.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 21st 2009, 08:21 PM
Can you provide scripture that says they are the same entirely? Of course you can't.

God used the same words (Torah and Mitzvah/ Law and commandments) in relation to Abraham in Gen. 26:5 and Moses from Exodus 20 forward. While Hebrew words can be slightly changed to carry different meanings. Torah and Mitzvah are the same in both cases. Since the same words are used, carrying the same meanings, it isn't me who has to show how they are the same, they already are. It is you who who would have to show how they are different. So, can you?

Bosco

Sirus
Mar 21st 2009, 08:58 PM
Why do I need show they are different entirely if you have already admitted it?
I am not saying 100% of the Torah was known before Sinai, that would be silly.I never said what was practiced before Moses was different. In fact I said the natural is a reflection of the spiritual. They are the same.

Veretax
Mar 21st 2009, 09:11 PM
Could you provide some scripture support for your conclusion?
it was compiled at Sinai?


You mean like private property? Oh boy, its buried in Lev, Num, or Deut, and is easily missed by some. There are a number of such I could quote, if I had the references handy, but I don't it will take some digging and time I don't have right this second to find. Rest assured they are in there (numbers or Deuteronomy I believe is where they are.)


So far no one has been able to provide scriptures to show that What God commanded Abraham was the same as he commanded Israel at mount Sinai. Can you supply them if you have them?

Can you also answer why the covenant made with Abraham could not be broken by man whereas the covenant with its commandments given at mount Sinai could and was?

Thanks Bosco,

Firstfruits


Well I guess it depends. Do you believe that God made the law up as he went along? Or did he establish what was right before time as we know it?

John's Gospel said,

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

That would seem to include the law, by my estimation.

bosco
Mar 22nd 2009, 12:17 AM
Do you believe that God made the law up as he went along? Or did he establish what was right before time as we know it?


Now isn't that an interesting take? Did God, who knew in the beginning what he'll know in the end, know in the beginning what would be acceptable behavior and what would not? Did he make it up as he went? When he finally nailed down what he thought was good behavior regarding him and those around us, and then called them everlasting commands, did he later change his mind and do away with that?

Bosco

bosco
Mar 22nd 2009, 12:23 AM
Why do I need show they are different entirely if you have already admitted it?I never said what was practiced before Moses was different. In fact I said the natural is a reflection of the spiritual. They are the same.

Sodom is a great example of the hole in your natural law perspective. (and I say this respectfully!) The residents of Sodom know not God, so their view or morality is not based on God's ideals but their own. Yet, their "natural" law not only permits sodomy, their natural law was so grievous that the word "sodomy" comes from their wickedness. Lot, on the other hand, knows God, walks righteously, and sees what they are doing as "wicked," and "evil." So one basis his morality on God and what he sees them doing is wicked, the others base their morality off what you term as natural law, and what they end up doing is disgusting.

Bosco

Sirus
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:53 AM
Wha? I said the written and spiritual is the same and you say the written is what Sodom followed? Huh?
I wasn't talking about a carnal mans perception. I was talking about the spiritual law being written for a society (Israelites).
The residents of Sodom know not God,Not according to Romans 1 ;)
Well yes, of course at the time, but they were not born without the knowledge of the truth and God. They rejected it, their heart was then darkened, continuing in their way they changed what they knew to be right, so the wrath of God was revealed from heaven.

bagofseed
Mar 22nd 2009, 05:03 AM
God Himself, His very nature is a law.

God's nature is seen in creation, so you might say, so is the "law" of his nature.

manichunter
Mar 22nd 2009, 05:08 AM
Could I say that God is the lawgiver in the OT, but He ceases being the lawgiver in the NT, it just does not seem right to say such

bagofseed
Mar 22nd 2009, 05:30 AM
Could I say that God is the lawgiver in the OT, but He ceases being the lawgiver in the NT, it just does not seem right to say such

How about He is the law giver for the OT

He is the law for the NT

Firstfruits
Mar 22nd 2009, 11:33 AM
Two points FF. First, when the words Mitzvah (commandments) and Torah (Law/instruction) are used in relation to Moses and Sinai AND regarding Abraham in Genesis 26:5, than it isn't me that has to prove they are the same, the words THEMSELVES are already the same carrying the same meaning. God could have chosen OTHER words to describe what he gave Abraham if it differed from what he gave Moses, but he DIDN'T, he used the SAME terms. So it would have to be YOU, who believes that Abraham didn't have what was given to Moses, to show me how the Torah in Gen. 26:5 and the Torah in Exodus 20 are different. It has to be YOU who shows how the Mitzvah of Gen. 26:5 is different than the Mitzvah of Exodus 20.

Second, I will answer no more questions from you until you address the two I have asked you 4 times to answer.

Bosco

I am sure that I answered your questions as I remember you saying this before, if it is concerning the righteousness of the law.

If you feel I have not then can you post the questions you believe I have not answered.

According to what is written What God commanded Abraham regarding the covenant is not what God commanded Israel, it is written.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Veretax
Mar 22nd 2009, 11:40 AM
Now isn't that an interesting take? Did God, who knew in the beginning what he'll know in the end, know in the beginning what would be acceptable behavior and what would not? Did he make it up as he went? When he finally nailed down what he thought was good behavior regarding him and those around us, and then called them everlasting commands, did he later change his mind and do away with that?

Bosco

Exactly! I believe sin has always been sin, and not simply defined as it at Sinai. However, we also need to ask the question of why the law is important. The law was given to man so that sin would be known.


FF,

As some have said there is a slight different from direct commands from God. (God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the Mt he'd show him.) And the moral and legal code he delivered through Moses at Sinai.

Firstfruits
Mar 22nd 2009, 11:53 AM
Exactly! I believe sin has always been sin, and not simply defined as it at Sinai. However, we also need to ask the question of why the law is important. The law was given to man so that sin would be known.


FF,

As some have said there is a slight different from direct commands from God. (God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the Mt he'd show him.) And the moral and legal code he delivered through Moses at Sinai.

So although the commands came from God what was given to Abraham is not the same as given to Moses at Sinai, is that right?

Firstfruits

BroRog
Mar 22nd 2009, 05:47 PM
Understood. If we have any discussion in the future I will try to use words as you understand them, and will ask for clarification if needed. However, since I am just some guy bending scripture to fit my theology (however you put it) I see little need for any future discussion.

I find is almost humorous that I am seen bending scripture to meet some pre-conceived need in scripture, when just a few years back, I saw scripture exactly as you do today. I didn't want to go in this direction, I fought God over it for almost two years and for a time, didn't go to any type of congregation. In the end, God wins. I have to accept what he says, whether it fits how I see things or not, or move on and join a new religion.

Bosco

What are you telling me? You fought with God for two years and now you are done learning?

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:21 AM
What are you telling me? You fought with God for two years and now you are done learning?

That is a pretty silly response! I fought with God over what I now accept as his truth. I continue to learn, and learned a lesson from my pigheadedness. I learned something new last night, sad to say I can't share it here. But if I walked with a closed mind thinking I know all there is to know, I wouldn't continue to learn. Rog, you are conversing with a guy that was a KJV only, Jesus only, and probably 10 other "onlys" until about 10 - 12 years ago. It was then that God made me see that "proving all things" can only happen with an open mind, and though it may have taken a few more years to fully incorporate that thinking into all aspects of my walk, I finally have and now, where you may have been able to loosely apply that "now you are done learning" tag on me years ago, it certainly doesn't fit today.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:26 AM
Exactly! I believe sin has always been sin, and not simply defined as it at Sinai. However, we also need to ask the question of why the law is important. The law was given to man so that sin would be known.

With reservations on this board, I submit the general knowledge of sin was in place when Adam ate of the fruit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is a symbol of Torah. Torah is what God sees as sin, and what is not sin. What is righteous, what is unrighteous. It defines what is good and acceptable and what is not. Torah, defines what is good, and what is evil. Adam did not see his nakedness until after he broke the command God gave him, but from then on he knew, in general as I am not suggesting a complete knowledge of all that was included at Sinai, what was sin and what wasn't....according to God. Man does not define by his "natural" abilities what is right and wrong. God has always been the definer in that regard.

Bosco

BroRog
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:26 AM
That is a pretty silly response! I fought with God over what I now accept as his truth. I continue to learn, and learned a lesson from my pigheadedness. I learned something new last night, sad to say I can't share it here. But if I walked with a closed mind thinking I know all there is to know, I wouldn't continue to learn. Rog, you are conversing with a guy that was a KJV only, Jesus only, and probably 10 other "onlys" until about 10 - 12 years ago. It was then that God made me see that "proving all things" can only happen with an open mind, and though it may have taken a few more years to fully incorporate that thinking into all aspects of my walk, I finally have and now, where you may have been able to loosely apply that "now you are done learning" tag on me years ago, it certainly doesn't fit today.

Bosco

I'm sorry you felt I was being silly. But in reality, I was giving you an opportunity to express your testimony in a fuller and clearer way, and I'm glad you did. Thanks for sharing that.

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:27 AM
I am sure that I answered your questions as I remember you saying this before, if it is concerning the righteousness of the law.

If you feel I have not then can you post the questions you believe I have not answered.

According to what is written What God commanded Abraham regarding the covenant is not what God commanded Israel, it is written.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

If I posted them again, it would be the fourth time. Nevermind FF, but don't ever expect me to answer a single question of yours again.

Peace and blessings.
Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:32 AM
Could I say that God is the lawgiver in the OT, but He ceases being the lawgiver in the NT, it just does not seem right to say such

I contend that he still is, but did not manifest himself as such in the apostolic writings. My take, Manichunter, is that God gave all the commands and laws, called them everlasting, making the need to repeat them redundant. While Paul counts off all 10 commands save for Sabbath, we see Jews and Greeks alike in the synagogue on Sabbath, so it is mentioned by action over word. We also see Messiah repeat many Torah commands, while elaborating on some of them to show the spirit behind them perfectly defining the true intent of the letter.

So my personal view is that if God gave them at any point in history and called them everlasting, eternal, and perpetual, they still are and need not be repeated because we have them in writing. Whether we accept them or prefer to believe that God is doing a new thing, that is up to each believer to work out.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:33 AM
I'm sorry you felt I was being silly. But in reality, I was giving you an opportunity to express your testimony in a fuller and clearer way, and I'm glad you did. Thanks for sharing that.

I took it as a jab rather than an opportunity to share anything.

By the way, make your next one a good one...it will be #2000.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 12:13 PM
If I posted them again, it would be the fourth time. Nevermind FF, but don't ever expect me to answer a single question of yours again.

Peace and blessings.
Bosco

Hi Bosco,

As I said as far as I know I have answered your questions maybe not to your liking, as when I have answered you still say I have not answered.

If I answer according to that which is written and it does not match with your opinion does that mean I have not answered?

Rom 3:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 7:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Rom 8:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is a difference between the law of the spirit and the law of Moses.

Firstfruits

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:03 PM
Hi Bosco,

As I said as far as I know I have answered your questions maybe not to your liking, as when I have answered you still say I have not answered.

If I answer according to that which is written and it does not match with your opinion does that mean I have not answered?

Rom 3:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 7:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Rom 8:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is a difference between the law of the spirit and the law of Moses.

Firstfruits

The verses you share prove you did not answer the questions. I was asking how if Moses received the Mitzvah and Torah (commandments and Law) and that is exactly the same words used as to what Abraham kept (Gen. 26:5), and because YOU said Abraham did not have the same Law Moses had, I am asking you to show me scripture that proves this.

Also, the term "law of the Spirit" does not exist in the NT at all. You are using terms not in scripture to justify your points. The closest use of that phrase is here:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Do notice that the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah hasn't made you free of Torah, it has made you free of the law of sin and death.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:07 PM
Hi Bosco,

As I said as far as I know I have answered your questions maybe not to your liking, as when I have answered you still say I have not answered.

If I answer according to that which is written and it does not match with your opinion does that mean I have not answered?

Don't insult me by saying I didn't like your answer, I didn't get an answer. I even posted using the title option saying these were questions for you, they went un-addressed. But for no other reason than I can, here they are again.

Questions for First Fruits
FF, you wrote: “But his works were not the works of the law of Moses, what does it say Abraham obeyed Gods voice, kept his charge, Gods commandments statutes Gods laws. yet if what Abraham was obedient to was the same law he gave to Israel through Moses it would contradict what is written in the scripture.”

To which I responded:

“How so (?), provide scripture please.”


You then wrote: “Abraham did all that God commanded him, but that does not make the same as the Mosaic law. If it were so then we would all have a problem with Abraham being the father of all that are of faith.”

To which I responded:
“Again, please provide scripture that shows the commandments (mitsvah) and the Laws (Torah) that were kept by Abraham are different than the commandments and Torah Moses wrote down.”

Can you please directly answer these two questions?

Thank you.
Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:35 PM
As you already know what God commanded Israel I will just put what God commanded Abraham.

Genesis 12:1-5
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Genesis 26:2-5
1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen 17:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Everything that God commanded Abraham to do was concerning his promise concerning the promised Messiah.

I hope that answers your questions.

God bless!

Firstfruits

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:43 PM
As you already know what God commanded Israel I will just put what God commanded Abraham.



Genesis 26:5
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen 17:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Firstfruits




According to the text you read yourself, Abraham obeyed
the Voice
Commandments
Statutues
Torah

These are the samethings Israel was commanded to obey at Sinai. The same words are used in the English and Hebrew, hence they have the same meanings.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:50 PM
According to the text you read yourself, Abraham obeyed
the Voice
Commandments
Statutues
Torah

These are the samethings Israel was commanded to obey at Sinai. The same words are used in the English and Hebrew, hence they have the same meanings.

What did Abraham obey according to what is written?

Genesis 12:1-5
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Genesis 26:2-5
1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Veretax
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:54 PM
So although the commands came from God what was given to Abraham is not the same as given to Moses at Sinai, is that right?

Firstfruits


Some yes, some no. For example, He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (literally kill him.), I don't believe God would want that from us in the literal sense. Secondly, he commanded Abraham to leave his country and follow his will elsewhere, yet I'm not convinced that this universally applies to everyone. However, there are many things that God likely gave to Abraham that still are relevant today. That's what I am saying.


With reservations on this board, I submit the general knowledge of sin was in place when Adam ate of the fruit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is a symbol of Torah. Torah is what God sees as sin, and what is not sin. What is righteous, what is unrighteous. It defines what is good and acceptable and what is not. Torah, defines what is good, and what is evil. Adam did not see his nakedness until after he broke the command God gave him, but from then on he knew, in general as I am not suggesting a complete knowledge of all that was included at Sinai, what was sin and what wasn't....according to God. Man does not define by his "natural" abilities what is right and wrong. God has always been the definer in that regard.

Bosco


On this I agree, sin has always been sin, and it did not become sin just because it was only written down at Sinai.

Vhayes
Mar 23rd 2009, 02:02 PM
Romans 5
12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13 - for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 02:38 PM
Some yes, some no. For example, He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (literally kill him.), I don't believe God would want that from us in the literal sense. Secondly, he commanded Abraham to leave his country and follow his will elsewhere, yet I'm not convinced that this universally applies to everyone. However, there are many things that God likely gave to Abraham that still are relevant today. That's what I am saying.




On this I agree, sin has always been sin, and it did not become sin just because it was only written down at Sinai.

What God commanded Abraham was for Abraham and through Abrahams obeidience we share in the promises given to Abraham.

God bless you1

Firstfruits

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 03:03 PM
What did Abraham obey according to what is written?

Genesis 12:1-5
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Genesis 26:2-5
1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

God bless you!

Firstfruits


Broken down it could be understand that first we have

the voice of Yahweh which was the same thing Yahweh use to transmit the Torah to Moses and Israel. Yahweh brought the entire congregation to the mountain and spoke out the entire Torah, hence they were orally given the Torah before they became the stewards of the written Torah, and then He asked the people if they would agree to keep it, to which they said yes. Then the Torah, statutes, and commandments were written down for future generations to disseminate to each other.

It is the same way Yahweh worked through Adam. Yahweh always starts the pattern with a patriarch or beginning generation, then leaves it to them to pass down things.

Something is missing in revelation.

What was Adam's original title and purpose on the Earth. How was he to go about ruling the world as Yahweh's regent. What was taken from Him, that was restored by Yehoshua. Take a look at Rev 5. Yehoshua was the only able to get it back for man and restore the proper order. We still in the body live in a world not restored to its proper order or rulership.

The Scroll is important............. It is the most important thing to mankind short of a relationship with Yahweh Himself.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 03:10 PM
Broken down it could be understand that first we have

the voice of Yahweh which was the same thing Yahweh use to transmit the Torah to Moses and Israel. Yahweh brought the entire congregation to the mountain and spoke out the entire Torah, hence they were orally given the Torah before they became the stewards of the written Torah, and then He asked the people if they would agree to keep it, to which they said yes. Then the Torah, statutes, and commandments were written down for future generations to disseminate to each other.

It is the same way Yahweh worked through Adam. Yahweh always starts the pattern with a patriarch or beginning generation, then leaves it to them to pass down things.

Something is missing in revelation.

What was Adam's original title and purpose on the Earth. How was he to go about ruling the world as Yahweh's regent. What was taken from Him, that was restored by Yehoshua. Take a look at Rev 5. Yehoshua was the only able to get it back for man and restore the proper order. We still in the body live in a world not restored to its proper order or rulership.

The Scroll is important............. It is the most important thing to mankind short of a relationship with Yahweh Himself.

There is no disagreement that God spoke to Abraham and to Israel but not for the same purpose. God commanded Abraham concerning to promise of Christ. The law was added because of transgressions.

Same God, different purposes.

God bless!

Firstfruits

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 03:33 PM
There is no disagreement that God spoke to Abraham and to Israel but not for the same purpose. God commanded Abraham concerning to promise of Christ. The law was added because of transgressions.

Same God, different purposes.

God bless!

Firstfruits

Good Lord, HAHAHAHA, man could not help but laugh seeing this. I take you serious, do not get me wrong, but man you can take a punch and keep swinging with the best fighter. However, in this case it is not a good thing, yet. :rofl:

Again you commit a mistake. You fall back to failsafes of standard NT theology without finding agreement in the OT. The OT says differently as to why the Torah was added which includes what you say.

No one could argue with you if you could establish a OT witness for the NT text you refer to. Everything in the NT is propesized about in the OT and no new principles get established. :kiss:

The Torah was given because of transgressions as you say, but so much more, that me and others try to express outside of the standard box. It is only on the outside of the box one can see a different view and vantage point.

If you are a serious student and earnest believer, then you know what I say is true.

Nothing is a complete truth of Yahweh without the OT witness for NT principles. The entire Scripture is in agreement.

People have always transgression since the fall of Adam, hence Yah did not want His people to live and do the same, hence He instructed them in the ways anti to being an transgressor. So, yes the Torah was added because of transgression in the negative, but you miss the positive for those who choose not to transgress.

Thanks for the respond and the fun kind sir. :hug:

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 03:48 PM
As you already know what God commanded Israel I will just put what God commanded Abraham.

Genesis 12:1-5
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Genesis 26:2-5
1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen 17:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Everything that God commanded Abraham to do was concerning his promise concerning the promised Messiah.

I hope that answers your questions.

God bless!

Firstfruits




So God's commandments, Laws, statutes, this is all summed up in God telling him to get out of his home? I can see that being "obeying his voice," or "obeying his charge," but how does obeying his law (Torah) get fulfilled in him moving? Why did he make YHWH and the two angels unleavened bread? Why unleavened? God wanted a sacrifice, and he obeyed when he was told to use Isaac. Isn't sacrifice part of Torah?

Anyway, I think you dodged the question, but I will let it ride. I asked you how the words TORAH and MITZVAH (law and commandments) differed in meaning when they were used in Genesis 26:5 concerning Abraham, and also in Exodus 20 forward concerning Moses and the rest of Israel, and they are the same words.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 03:52 PM
Funny, we are talking about Torah. First Fruits has made it a point a few times to say that the law was made for transgressors. While true, we are ALL transgressors!!! Adam was a transgressor, Abraham was a transgressor. If the law was made for transgressors, how was it not for them? Isn't Torah God revealing what is good and what is evil, what is acceptable and what is not? Then how is the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil not taking a bite out of Torah? Once the command was broken, their eyes were opened they knew what sin was. Torah defines sin...maybe there is more to that tree than meets the eye?

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:08 PM
Romans 5
12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13 - for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Not imputed, not put onto their account. If you notice V, when Cain murdered he did not go before the courts, God banished him on his own. There were no courts. While Torah recorded what God considered to be sin and what was not (e.g. murder, as in Cain's case, was sin when he did it and was later written as sin at Sinai), the judgements were never known before Sinai. It was then that God placed the jurisdiction of hearing a dispute, solving it or passing it on to the judges, and then the penalty phrase, into man's hands.

We know that Adam's sin was imputed in an eternal nature, his action caused condemnation on all who follow. So there was an imputation of the act of his sin. But not in a way that would be physically dealt with, as it would be included later at Sinai. Adam's sin was imputed spiritually, we became separated from God, it was most certainly added to our account. But there was no physical imputation, and I think this must be what Paul is speaking about. Any ideas?

Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:33 PM
So God's commandments, Laws, statutes, this is all summed up in God telling him to get out of his home? I can see that being "obeying his voice," or "obeying his charge," but how does obeying his law (Torah) get fulfilled in him moving? Why did he make YHWH and the two angels unleavened bread? Why unleavened? God wanted a sacrifice, and he obeyed when he was told to use Isaac. Isn't sacrifice part of Torah?

Anyway, I think you dodged the question, but I will let it ride. I asked you how the words TORAH and MITZVAH (law and commandments) differed in meaning when they were used in Genesis 26:5 concerning Abraham, and also in Exodus 20 forward concerning Moses and the rest of Israel, and they are the same words.

Bosco

According to the following it was not commanded by God.

Jer 7:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
Jer 7:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

God commanded Abraham, and God commanded Israel but for different reasons. One for mans salvation the other because of trangressions of Israel.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Vhayes
Mar 23rd 2009, 04:48 PM
Not imputed, not put onto their account. If you notice V, when Cain murdered he did not go before the courts, God banished him on his own. There were no courts. While Torah recorded what God considered to be sin and what was not (e.g. murder, as in Cain's case, was sin when he did it and was later written as sin at Sinai), the judgements were never known before Sinai. It was then that God placed the jurisdiction of hearing a dispute, solving it or passing it on to the judges, and then the penalty phrase, into man's hands.

We know that Adam's sin was imputed in an eternal nature, his action caused condemnation on all who follow. So there was an imputation of the act of his sin. But not in a way that would be physically dealt with, as it would be included later at Sinai. Adam's sin was imputed spiritually, we became separated from God, it was most certainly added to our account. But there was no physical imputation, and I think this must be what Paul is speaking about. Any ideas?

Bosco
You missed my point - you had asked for scriptural references saying that the Law was not in effect until Moses. I gave you that reference, per Paul.

keck553
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:00 PM
God commanded Abraham, and God commanded Israel but for different reasons. One for mans salvation the other because of trangressions of Israel.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

What transgressions? They had just walked out of Egypt. If you want to discuss the golden calf, then we can do that, but you'll have to understand that same transgression occurs in believers to this day.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:04 PM
Good Lord, HAHAHAHA, man could not help but laugh seeing this. I take you serious, do not get me wrong, but man you can take a punch and keep swinging with the best fighter. However, in this case it is not a good thing, yet. :rofl:

Again you commit a mistake. You fall back to failsafes of standard NT theology without finding agreement in the OT. The OT says differently as to why the Torah was added which includes what you say.

No one could argue with you if you could establish a OT witness for the NT text you refer to. Everything in the NT is propesized about in the OT and no new principles get established. :kiss:

The Torah was given because of transgressions as you say, but so much more, that me and others try to express outside of the standard box. It is only on the outside of the box one can see a different view and vantage point.

If you are a serious student and earnest believer, then you know what I say is true.

Nothing is a complete truth of Yahweh without the OT witness for NT principles. The entire Scripture is in agreement.

People have always transgression since the fall of Adam, hence Yah did not want His people to live and do the same, hence He instructed them in the ways anti to being an transgressor. So, yes the Torah was added because of transgression in the negative, but you miss the positive for those who choose not to transgress.

Thanks for the respond and the fun kind sir. :hug:

There is much in the NT that is not in the OT. Christ fulfilling what he came to do is in the NT. The new testament in established in the NT.

Unless you you are saying that Abraham was sinning and therefore commanded not to which according to scripture is not the case.

I take it that you do not believe the following?

Gal 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) 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.

This is after it was fulfilled, Jesus has come.

Firstfruits

Vhayes
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:05 PM
What transgressions? They had just walked out of Egypt. If you want to discuss the golden calf, then we can do that, but you'll have to understand that same transgression occurs in believers to this day.
Keck, go back and read the response every single time of the Hebrew people. Every time.

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:06 PM
There is much in the NT that is not in the OT. Christ fulfilling what he came to do is in the NT. The new testament in established in the NT.

Unless you you are saying that Abraham was sinning and therefore commanded not to which according to scripture is not the case.

I take it that you do not believe the following?

Gal 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) 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.

This is after it was fulfilled, Jesus has come.

Firstfruits

Transgression began with Adam and continues until the day we are made incorruptible..

Bosco

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:07 PM
According to the following it was not commanded by God.

Jer 7:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
Jer 7:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

God commanded Abraham, and God commanded Israel but for different reasons. One for mans salvation the other because of trangressions of Israel.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Not for two different reasons, in two different WAYS. Until Sinai, God spoke his will to those who were his. At Sinai, it was comitted to writing and remains in writing to this day.

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:20 PM
There is much in the NT that is not in the OT. Christ fulfilling what he came to do is in the NT. The new testament in established in the NT.

Unless you you are saying that Abraham was sinning and therefore commanded not to which according to scripture is not the case.

I take it that you do not believe the following?

Gal 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) 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.

This is after it was fulfilled, Jesus has come.

Firstfruits

Yes, Abraham did Transgress, if he did not then he could have been our Savior. He was caught bearing false witness several times. He did not trust God with the promise at first, hence producing Ishmael. He obeyed his wife's voice (does that sound familiar).

If you can find a principle that is exclusive to the NT, let me know. Either that is being taken out of context or that person is not knowledgeable of the OT. Jesus said in both the OT and NT that things have to be established by two to three witnesses. If it cannot, then it violates Scripture means of witnessing for confirmation.

keck553
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:21 PM
Keck, go back and read the response every single time of the Hebrew people. Every time.

You mean in the wilderness? What makes you think we (myself included) are any different? How many miricles has God done for me in my life, yet when the bottom falls out of something in my life I panic? More than I care to count. In fact, it's happening right now in my business. I honestly don't know if we are going to make it. To fail means disaster and living in a tent at a campground. Do I trust God to get us through this, or is it His plan to make me into a tent-maker?

All I know is to glorify Him with what I have, no matter what the circumstances. I've gone from pretty well off to potentially losing everything I've built. It's not a pretty place to be in this physical world. He's breaking me at the point of what I perceived was my greatest strength, just as He breaks all His Children. I'd rather be broken by His love than broken by this cold world. I just hope and pray my real strength is steadfast and unwavering faith in Him.

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:25 PM
You missed my point - you had asked for scriptural references saying that the Law was not in effect until Moses. I gave you that reference, per Paul.

No, you missed mine (;)) and going back over what I wrote, it is no wonder!

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I don't see where this says the law was unique to Sinai? We know God said that Abraham kept his Mitzvah (commandments) and Torah (law, instruction), so that shows a knowledge of Torah prior to Sinai. Yes, of course, the judgements were not included until Sinai, but the basic dos and don'ts....what is sin and what is not, I think it is clear that this knowledge was known before Sinai.

V, when Paul wrote that all scripture was given by the inspiration of God, you do understand that was speaking of the Tanach, the OT? Of course the NT is inspired, but there was no NT when he spoke this. The reference had to be toward what was accepted as scripture at that time. He went on that it (scripture) is profitable for....."instruction in righteousness." What is righteousness? Is it not a purity of heart, a conformity of our heart and life to divine law, God's will? Doesn't it include all we call justice, honesty and virtue, with holy affections; in short, isn't it true religion? Torah is instruction in righteousness. It is God's view of moraility, what is acceptable before him, what is not. It is right and wrong, holy and un-holy. When it comes to practice, what God expects and what he does not.

When we see Adam's family making an offering, is it not because of their understanding that they fall short of a holy God? When Noah builds and alter and makes a burnt offering, is this not the same? When Lot looks upon the Sodomites and calls them "wicked," is that not because he understands what God sees as evil? Man is not capable of his own righteousness, it is God that defines what is righteous. So yes, Torah was comitted to writing at Sinai, but Abraham kept God's Torah. The commandments, written at Sinai...but was stealing not understood to be wrong before Sinai? Was serving other gods permissible before Sinai? Before he even got to Sinai, Moses was asked by God, "how long do you refuse to keep my commandments and law?" (Exd. 16:28) How then is Torah unique to Sinai, the word is right there tanslated as law? It is the same word used in relation to Abraham, and also the same word used from Exodus 20 forward.

Think it out V....when Adam sinned, did that curse fall...right then...on all who follow? if you say yes, go look up what the word imputed means. Spiritually, it was imputed on us even though the law had no been comitted to writing. Physically too, as the length of life spans and death itself, began to rule. But as far as needing to deal with the judgements, stoning, re-payment, there was no imputation of sin in that physical sense because there was no mechanism set up to deal with it.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 06:52 PM
Transgression began with Adam and continues until the day we are made incorruptible..

Bosco

But the law was not added until Sinai. The law lasts until "the seed should come as promised to Abraham.

Gal 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) 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.

The seed has come, Jesus has come.

Firstfruits

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 06:55 PM
But the law was not added until Sinai. The law lasts until "the seed should come as promised to Abraham.

Gal 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) 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.

The seed has come, Jesus has come.

Firstfruits

You're missing my point FF. The word for law is Torah. That word, specifically is used over 20 times before Sinai, and that includes it's use in Genesis 26:5. So while you passionately attempt to show Torah as beginning at Sinai, the word itself is used by God before then. Not just with Abraham, but in the early half of the 16th chapter of Exodus, Moses is asked by God how long he will refuse to keep his commandments and laws. (Torah) It was written at Sinai FF, written. That doesn't mean God didn't tell his people his rules of dos and don'ts before then.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 07:07 PM
Yes, Abraham did Transgress, if he did not then he could have been our Savior. He was caught bearing false witness several times. He did not trust God with the promise at first, hence producing Ishmael. He obeyed his wife's voice (does that sound familiar).

If you can find a principle that is exclusive to the NT, let me know. Either that is being taken out of context or that person is not knowledgeable of the OT. Jesus said in both the OT and NT that things have to be established by two to three witnesses. If it cannot, then it violates Scripture means of witnessing for confirmation.

So if the scripture is already established as is the gospel we cannot preach any other gospel than that we have been given, whether or not we like what is written.

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

With the understanding that the gospel is the fulfillment of what is written in the Torah concerning Christ, why is the doctrine of Christ and the apostles taken in second place to that which cannot save and is not of faith, and for gentiles happened because Israel rejected God?

God bless!

Firstfruits

Veretax
Mar 23rd 2009, 07:08 PM
What transgressions? They had just walked out of Egypt. If you want to discuss the golden calf, then we can do that, but you'll have to understand that same transgression occurs in believers to this day.


I think context is needed for that Jeremiah passage..

Je 7:22-26 (NKJV)

22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have even sent to you all My servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them. 26 Yet they did not obey Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.

Jeremiah 7:22-26 (NKJV)



Jeremiah is saying that Israel's rebellion began since they came out of Egypt. It didn't start in the promised land, it began back in the beginning of the exodus, that is what Jeremiah is saying.


As for Genesis:

Ge 26:1-5 (NKJV)

Isaac and Abimelech

26 There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, in Gerar.

2 Then the Lord appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

Genesis 26:1-5 (NKJV)

Sin is Sin, and always has been.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 07:12 PM
You're missing my point FF. The word for law is Torah. That word, specifically is used over 20 times before Sinai, and that includes it's use in Genesis 26:5. So while you passionately attempt to show Torah as beginning at Sinai, the word itself is used by God before then. Not just with Abraham, but in the early half of the 16th chapter of Exodus, Moses is asked by God how long he will refuse to keep his commandments and laws. (Torah) It was written at Sinai FF, written. That doesn't mean God didn't tell his people his rules of dos and don'ts before then.

Bosco

To prevent confusion, what may I ask did God give to Moses at mount Sinai, since it seems one minute we are talking about the law of Moses then we are not.

Thanks

Firstfruits

mizzdy
Mar 23rd 2009, 08:17 PM
The title of the thread is Torah before Sinai. The scriptures clearly tell us that Abraham kept God's charge, commandments, statues and laws. We may not have a formal structured outline such as we read with Moses and the Israelites yet we have the same wordages used regarding the words laws, commandments etc.


With the understanding that the gospel is the fulfillment of what is written in the Torah concerning Christ, why is the doctrine of Christ and the apostles taken in second place to that which cannot save and is not of faith, and for gentiles happened because Israel rejected God?



What is the doctrine of Christ and the apostles? And how is it second place when Christ clearly came teaching us about the coming kingdom. Christ is the law/torah isn't He? Didn't He come to teach us about the Kingdom of God? Why would Christ do away with something that He being given all powers and authority by God, get rid of the very thing that teaches us what is good and bad in the eyes of God? We would not know what are transgressions against our Father without the torah, would we? Or is it your belief that we believers in God and Christ now unable to sin?

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 08:28 PM
So if the scripture is already established as is the gospel we cannot preach any other gospel than that we have been given, whether or not we like what is written.

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

With the understanding that the gospel is the fulfillment of what is written in the Torah concerning Christ, why is the doctrine of Christ and the apostles taken in second place to that which cannot save and is not of faith, and for gentiles happened because Israel rejected God?

God bless!

Firstfruits

One of the things some Christians are unaware of is the fact that Yehoshua the Lion is still working on behalf of the redemption of mankind. As long as the kingdom of the KING has not been made manifest, then the work of conversion, regeneration, adoption, justification, and sanctification, then ultimately glorification are taking place or up ahead. All things have not been fulfilled until His second coming. If one acknowledges that, then he could consider that none of the elements of the total plan have been subtracted. The only thing that has changed is the light made manifest to mankind based on what the Father has showed us. We are still being brought into the light of the plan of the Father to restore man.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 08:29 PM
The title of the thread is Torah before Sinai. The scriptures clearly tell us that Abraham kept God's charge, commandments, statues and laws. We may not have a formal structured outline such as we read with Moses and the Israelites yet we have the same wordages used regarding the words laws, commandments etc.


What is the doctrine of Christ and the apostles? And how is it second place when Christ clearly came teaching us about the coming kingdom. Christ is the law/torah isn't He? Didn't He come to teach us about the Kingdom of God? Why would Christ do away with something that He being given all powers and authority by God, get rid of the very thing that teaches us what is good and bad in the eyes of God? We would not know what are transgressions against our Father without the torah, would we? Or is it your belief that we believers in God and Christ now unable to sin?

The gospel is what was witnessed by the apostles as was prophesied in the Torah concerning Christ this was not the law of commandments.

Firstfruits

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 08:38 PM
The gospel is what was witnessed by the apostles as was prophesied in the Torah concerning Christ this was not the law of commandments.

Firstfruits

But Christ did say keep my commandments which never listed with the exception of the young rich ruler. He never listed them because they were already recorded.

Firstfruits
Mar 23rd 2009, 08:45 PM
But Christ did say keep my commandments which never listed with the exception of the young rich ruler. He never listed them because they were already recorded.

If Christ came in order to keep the law then Christ died in vain.

We know what Chrst commanded the apostles.

Firstfruits

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 09:28 PM
If Christ came in order to keep the law then Christ died in vain.

We know what Chrst commanded the apostles.

Firstfruits

Christ didn't come to keep the law, but when he came, he kept the whole law. FF, you have to get passed this. If you believe that at his death the law was done away with, you can't argue it was in affect while he yet lived. Since sin was defined by Torah, he had to keep it all, without exception, while he lived. Since we know he did not sin, we know he kept Torah perfectly.

Bosco

keck553
Mar 23rd 2009, 09:30 PM
If Christ came in order to keep the law then Christ died in vain.

We know what Chrst commanded the apostles.

Firstfruits

If Christ is God, He kept His own Word. You can't esacpe it. Denial will only cause a separation that could otherwise bless you immensly. I want you to be blessed.

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 09:31 PM
To prevent confusion, what may I ask did God give to Moses at mount Sinai, since it seems one minute we are talking about the law of Moses then we are not.

Thanks

Firstfruits

I have specifically told you that when I use the word Torah, I am refering to God's law and not the first 5 books unless I say so. I wonder if you read the posts, or just pull out what you want to argue about and discard the rest?

The law of Moses is >>GOD'S<< Torah, his law. I am saying specifically that God's laws were known before Sinai but at Sinai were, for the first time, committed to writing.

Bosco

PS...I don't care FF if you don't agree with me, but at least read the whole posts or let me know you don't so I can save my time.

Emanate
Mar 23rd 2009, 09:35 PM
If Christ came in order to keep the law then Christ died in vain.

We know what Chrst commanded the apostles.

Firstfruits


You really believe Messiah died in vain? How could He fulfill the law without "keeping" it?

mizzdy
Mar 23rd 2009, 10:05 PM
The gospel is what was witnessed by the apostles as was prophesied in the Torah concerning Christ this was not the law of commandments.

Firstfruits

How are Christ's doctrines different than God's? It seems many are confused about what the torah is many see the word and see the Jewish idea of torah. I admit I first felt the same way until I came across the hebrew wordage and means of the letters, and even though I don't know or read hebrew I see how the letters are so meaningful. Heres something that might interest some and am sure not knew to most I guess.

Tav in the literal meaning is sign, a cross, and the symbolic meaning is to seal, a covenant, vav literally means nail, symbolically it means to add to secure, reysh lit. is head and symbolically its person the head the highest hey literally is window or fence symbolic to reveal. Head being the highest or head of house; window, to see clearly, to reveal think window to the soul type reveal.

So torah which means so much more than a set of laws which had no power to redemn means this;
The torah reveals the King of Kings, nailed to the cross. or literally Nailed to a cross, at his head, it is revealed.

What was revealed? And who is the torah? Christ came to redemn us which is something that was lacking but was the promised hoped for. Christ came to fulfill that part of God's plan for the redemption of us all but because He is the law now we are now free from death, from the condemnation of following laws and rules that had no end, no salvation written into them except for the hoped for Messiah who does redemn us. Yet what does He have to redemn us from? The laws God set forth from the beginning of man and creation.

manichunter
Mar 23rd 2009, 10:17 PM
If Christ came in order to keep the law then Christ died in vain.

We know what Chrst commanded the apostles.

Firstfruits

You have not checked it out yet, I told you that your blessing was in Rev 5, if you could come to the understanding of what the scroll was in the Father's right hand and why was Yehoshua able to take it out of His hand. It clearly state that the book was for mankind to take from the Father, but no one to include the future was worthy enough to take it except Jesus in His humanity as a man.

By the way, is Jesus and David still physical kin folk?

keck553
Mar 23rd 2009, 10:26 PM
The gospel is what was witnessed by the apostles as was prophesied in the Torah concerning Christ this was not the law of commandments.

Firstfruits

Are you suggesting Yeshua was disingenuous when He said this?

Mat 12:50
(50) "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 09:01 AM
Are you suggesting Yeshua was disingenuous when He said this?

Mat 12:50
(50) "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."


No, in fact we establish what God said we should do.

Mt 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

How do we do the work of the Father?

Jn 6:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 09:08 AM
How are Christ's doctrines different than God's? It seems many are confused about what the torah is many see the word and see the Jewish idea of torah. I admit I first felt the same way until I came across the hebrew wordage and means of the letters, and even though I don't know or read hebrew I see how the letters are so meaningful. Heres something that might interest some and am sure not knew to most I guess.

Tav in the literal meaning is sign, a cross, and the symbolic meaning is to seal, a covenant, vav literally means nail, symbolically it means to add to secure, reysh lit. is head and symbolically its person the head the highest hey literally is window or fence symbolic to reveal. Head being the highest or head of house; window, to see clearly, to reveal think window to the soul type reveal.

So torah which means so much more than a set of laws which had no power to redemn means this;
The torah reveals the King of Kings, nailed to the cross. or literally Nailed to a cross, at his head, it is revealed.

What was revealed? And who is the torah? Christ came to redemn us which is something that was lacking but was the promised hoped for. Christ came to fulfill that part of God's plan for the redemption of us all but because He is the law now we are now free from death, from the condemnation of following laws and rules that had no end, no salvation written into them except for the hoped for Messiah who does redemn us. Yet what does He have to redemn us from? The laws God set forth from the beginning of man and creation.

With the understanding that Jesus is God then what ever he commanded the disciples to do and we do as they have taught us, then we are obeying God.

What therefore did Jesus/God command the disciples to do?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 09:14 AM
You have not checked it out yet, I told you that your blessing was in Rev 5, if you could come to the understanding of what the scroll was in the Father's right hand and why was Yehoshua able to take it out of His hand. It clearly state that the book was for mankind to take from the Father, but no one to include the future was worthy enough to take it except Jesus in His humanity as a man.

By the way, is Jesus and David still physical kin folk?

I have read Rev.5, however it does not explain why if Christ came to keep the law or to show that we can keep the law then why was he rejected by those that had the law?

Firstfruits

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 11:24 AM
I have read Rev.5, however it does not explain why if Christ came to keep the law or to show that we can keep the law then why was he rejected by those that had the law?

Firstfruits

Because their eyes were blinded to the truth. Those who had the law FF were practicing a bastardized version of it to begin with. The sages/rabbi's had long begun to do their manipulating to Torah before Messiah came, which is why he spent time rebuking SOME of them. Paul too, was not rebuking all who kept the law, only those who manipulated it for personal gain and power.

This was ALL part of God's plan anyway. The Jews, in general, rejected him, but NOT like you think. James had a church full of Jews in Jerusalem that numbered OVER 20,000 members. Think about the population in Jerusalem at that time, then realize how big James' church was. But as a whole he was rejected, and the Good News was sent out into the world. But guess what, Israel was.....IS..... scattered all over the world, among the Gentiles.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 11:35 AM
With the understanding that Jesus is God then what ever he commanded the disciples to do and we do as they have taught us, then we are obeying God.

What therefore did Jesus/God command the disciples to do?

Firstfruits

But you assume that what he commanded the people when on earth differs than what he commanded prior to being on earth. He never once contradicted Torah, he only elaborated on it. The two great commands are repeats from Deut. Many things he stated are simply repeats taken from Greek into English as opposed to Hebrew into English accounting for the slight variances. And some times he took the time to better explain the intent, e.g. looking at a woman in lust is adultery. While that isn't in Torah in word for word form, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if Torah says to not committ adultery, then looking at a member of the opposite sex in a lustfull manner is as much adultery as performing the act. He (Messiah) was VERY consistent to Torah.

Bosco

Bosco

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 11:42 AM
How are Christ's doctrines different than God's? It seems many are confused about what the torah is many see the word and see the Jewish idea of torah. I admit I first felt the same way until I came across the hebrew wordage and means of the letters, and even though I don't know or read hebrew I see how the letters are so meaningful. Heres something that might interest some and am sure not knew to most I guess.

Tav in the literal meaning is sign, a cross, and the symbolic meaning is to seal, a covenant, vav literally means nail, symbolically it means to add to secure, reysh lit. is head and symbolically its person the head the highest hey literally is window or fence symbolic to reveal. Head being the highest or head of house; window, to see clearly, to reveal think window to the soul type reveal.

So torah which means so much more than a set of laws which had no power to redemn means this;
The torah reveals the King of Kings, nailed to the cross. or literally Nailed to a cross, at his head, it is revealed.

What was revealed? And who is the torah? Christ came to redemn us which is something that was lacking but was the promised hoped for. Christ came to fulfill that part of God's plan for the redemption of us all but because He is the law now we are now free from death, from the condemnation of following laws and rules that had no end, no salvation written into them except for the hoped for Messiah who does redemn us. Yet what does He have to redemn us from? The laws God set forth from the beginning of man and creation.

You make some great points in this post Mizzdy. Paul talks about Torah in 2 Tim 3:16. He says that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God. With no NT at the time and the only accepted scripture in existence he can be refering to being what we call the OT, that is what he refers to. Then, he says it is profitable for doctrine. (which means instruction, learning, teaching) It is also profitable for "instruction in righteousness." That there sums up Torah in my opinion. Torah is the record of what God deems as acceptable behavior, and what is not. It is a complete list of dos and don'ts, what he considers righteous, and what he considers unrighteous. The Prophets and Writings contain instruction in righteousness, but no where near to the extent that Torah does. So when Paul states that scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, and people today are returning to Torah to live as they believe God desires them to....why is this an issue for others? All we want is to walk as close to "in the will" of God as we can, and that instruction comes from Torah as elaborated on by Yahshua and the Apostolic writers.

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 24th 2009, 11:58 AM
I have read Rev.5, however it does not explain why if Christ came to keep the law or to show that we can keep the law then why was he rejected by those that had the law?

Firstfruits

The mystery is what the book was, why no man was able to get the book from the Father, but man was expected to; and why Jesus was able to get the book as a man. The current mainstream christian doctrine does not contain theological answers to these mysteries because dispensationalism has cut out Israelite terminology and replaced it with western thoughts. Someone had prior dominion, but lost it, now someone was retaking dominion, but a legal process was in order.

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 12:53 PM
Because their eyes were blinded to the truth. Those who had the law FF were practicing a bastardized version of it to begin with. The sages/rabbi's had long begun to do their manipulating to Torah before Messiah came, which is why he spent time rebuking SOME of them. Paul too, was not rebuking all who kept the law, only those who manipulated it for personal gain and power.

This was ALL part of God's plan anyway. The Jews, in general, rejected him, but NOT like you think. James had a church full of Jews in Jerusalem that numbered OVER 20,000 members. Think about the population in Jerusalem at that time, then realize how big James' church was. But as a whole he was rejected, and the Good News was sent out into the world. But guess what, Israel was.....IS..... scattered all over the world, among the Gentiles.

Bosco

Whether or not we have the law we all have one way to God and to please him and that is by faith in Christ, we are all the same we are all under sin until we come to Christ.

Acts 15:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Acts 15:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Faith, no matter who we are. With or without the law we are all the same.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 01:00 PM
The mystery is what the book was, why no man was able to get the book from the Father, but man was expected to; and why Jesus was able to get the book as a man. The current mainstream christian doctrine does not contain theological answers to these mysteries because dispensationalism has cut out Israelite terminology and replaced it with western thoughts. Someone had prior dominion, but lost it, now someone was retaking dominion, but a legal process was in order.

If you are saying that there are still hidden mysteries in the Gospel then how would you explain the following scrpture?

2 Cor 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Emanate
Mar 24th 2009, 01:21 PM
If you are saying that there are still hidden mysteries in the Gospel then how would you explain the following scrpture?

2 Cor 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:



No, he did not even remotely hint at that.

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 01:23 PM
If you are saying that there are still hidden mysteries in the Gospel then how would you explain the following scrpture?

2 Cor 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

God bless you!

Firstfruits

You are using the word gospel to refer to the whole NT? The Good News, how to find the narrow path to God, is indeed hid from them who are lost. One must seek to find, and faith produces a desire to seek. But there is nothing about the Good News hidden from those who are his!

But there are many still hidden revelations within the NT that we are not privy to yet. First, Israel (the scattered northern kingdom) still does not know their true identity, and Ephraim doesn't understand his place yet. In addition, how many different understandings have you heard for the book of revelation? it has been argued for generations and will continue to be until Messiah's return.

Bosco

manichunter
Mar 24th 2009, 01:23 PM
If you are saying that there are still hidden mysteries in the Gospel then how would you explain the following scrpture?

2 Cor 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Then you tell me what the scroll is in the Father's right hand and why no man other than the man Jesus could get it from the Father. :)

We still see through a glass dimly, not clearly.

The things I am calling mysteries are sometimes not mysteries at all, just ignorance because people lack certain things, to include myself kind sir.

We lack a comprehensive study of OT free of preestablished theological biases. We lack a critical understanding of the Scriptural culture that existed during the writing of the text. We fail to leave Scripture in there setting. We do not see the cohesion of OT and NT as they keep the same meanings and nuiances. We lack a few other things as gentiles that would cast more light on the Scripture, but I defer that for right now. :cry:

These are now things that keep me striving for truth. I do not want the theology, I want the truth, and that can only be found outside of any pre-established box that religion and dogma has created.

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 01:34 PM
These are now things that keep me striving for truth. I do not want the theology, I want the truth, and that can only be found outside of any pre-established box that religion and dogma has created.

And that is exactly why you will continue to find it. Blessings in that regard!

Bosco

Vhayes
Mar 24th 2009, 01:46 PM
I have to ask - what about all the men and women who had hearts that loved the Lord and sought Him and the knowledge of Him for the past 2,000 years? Do you really think they were "blinded" by their religious dogma and kept their love in a box? Really? Do you really think God would not recognize the sincerity of their heart and reveal truth to them?

This line of thinking confuses me.

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 01:47 PM
You are using the word gospel to refer to the whole NT? The Good News, how to find the narrow path to God, is indeed hid from them who are lost. One must seek to find, and faith produces a desire to seek. But there is nothing about the Good News hidden from those who are his!

But there are many still hidden revelations within the NT that we are not privy to yet. First, Israel (the scattered northern kingdom) still does not know their true identity, and Ephraim doesn't understand his place yet. In addition, how many different understandings have you heard for the book of revelation? it has been argued for generations and will continue to be until Messiah's return.

Bosco

Is the NT not the good news about Christ, just as the Torah is about Christ, or are there sections of the NT that you do not follow or agree with?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 01:58 PM
Then you tell me what the scroll is in the Father's right hand and why no man other than the man Jesus could get it from the Father. :)

We still see through a glass dimly, not clearly.

The things I am calling mysteries are sometimes not mysteries at all, just ignorance because people lack certain things, to include myself kind sir.

We lack a comprehensive study of OT free of preestablished theological biases. We lack a critical understanding of the Scriptural culture that existed during the writing of the text. We fail to leave Scripture in there setting. We do not see the cohesion of OT and NT as they keep the same meanings and nuiances. We lack a few other things as gentiles that would cast more light on the Scripture, but I defer that for right now. :cry:

These are now things that keep me striving for truth. I do not want the theology, I want the truth, and that can only be found outside of any pre-established box that religion and dogma has created.

May I ask what it is that you do not understand about Revelation 5?

Ezek 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=26&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

I hope that answers your question.

Firstfruits

mizzdy
Mar 24th 2009, 03:27 PM
With the understanding that Jesus is God then what ever he commanded the disciples to do and we do as they have taught us, then we are obeying God.

What therefore did Jesus/God command the disciples to do?

Firstfruits

Christ taught them and us exactly what God told Him to teach us, to follow after Him and learn His ways. What are His ways? To walk around willy nilly with no structure or guidelines? So many say there are only two commands from Christ, to love God to love our neighbors which are both great laws yet where are the rest of God's instructions on everything else in life? Where did Christ receive His instructions as He was walking around doing His job before He started His ministry? All those teachings come directly from the scriptures they had before them and those are the very scriptures that the apostles and all the rest of early christianity had to go by yet so many want to discount those very things that shaped the life and times of the Christ and the apostles. The big difference between the OT and the NT times is that God gave His Holy Spirit to all who turned from their lives, repented and accepted the Messiah, not a lot of OT people had that saving grace.

You know all of God's laws lead to peace, safety, prosperity and well being and if the Israelites lived according to the very laws they accepted by God's voice they would have been a light to the whole world showing God's goodness and love. We see what happened to Israel throughout all those years because they failed to keep those laws with a hardened heart and not with the spiritual heart now given to us so we may keep those laws with the help of the Holy Spirit. We now have those very laws hopefully written on our hearts so we can follow after Christ in all of His ways.

Gen. 21:33 God is everlasting
Psalms 111:7-9 says God's precepts are sure and they stand fast and forever and ever and are done in truth and uprighness. He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant forever: Holy and awesome is His name.

How do you get around this if you think God's commandments are done away with since I see this verse bantered around all the time as to how to come to God?
Psalms 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever.

keck553
Mar 24th 2009, 03:36 PM
No, in fact we establish what God said we should do.

Mt 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

How do we do the work of the Father?

Jn 6:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

So when America won the revolution war, the constitution was established. Does that mean we don't abide in it?

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 03:37 PM
I have to ask - what about all the men and women who had hearts that loved the Lord and sought Him and the knowledge of Him for the past 2,000 years? Do you really think they were "blinded" by their religious dogma and kept their love in a box? Really? Do you really think God would not recognize the sincerity of their heart and reveal truth to them?

This line of thinking confuses me.

Salvation is purely of the heart, Messiah perfecting whom HE wills. But as we draw closer to his return, an increase in knowledge and understanding, an outpouring of his Spirit even, will increase. And then, there is this:

Act 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Act 3:20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
Act 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Increase in knowledge, the re-uniting of the kingdoms, Torah...these are what the prophets of old spoke.

Bosco

keck553
Mar 24th 2009, 03:42 PM
I have to ask - what about all the men and women who had hearts that loved the Lord and sought Him and the knowledge of Him for the past 2,000 years? Do you really think they were "blinded" by their religious dogma and kept their love in a box? Really? Do you really think God would not recognize the sincerity of their heart and reveal truth to them?

This line of thinking confuses me.

Strange, because you and I both know someone on this forum who I think we could both agree loves the LORD with all his heart, mind and strength, and yet he still can not see Messiah, because He's not what he expected. I also will tell you that my wife knew a WWII holocaust survivor, with the serial number still tatooed on her arm hold on to her faith in God through worse circumstances than you or I or anyone here could imagine. I can't believe God didn't watch over her and keep her strong. By the way, she came to faith in Messiah with my wife present. She said it was one of those Joseph moments. Apparently the peak of joy combined with the peak of repentance make a very strong witness.

mizzdy
Mar 24th 2009, 03:47 PM
You make some great points in this post Mizzdy. Paul talks about Torah in 2 Tim 3:16. He says that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God. With no NT at the time and the only accepted scripture in existence he can be refering to being what we call the OT, that is what he refers to. Then, he says it is profitable for doctrine. (which means instruction, learning, teaching) It is also profitable for "instruction in righteousness." That there sums up Torah in my opinion. Torah is the record of what God deems as acceptable behavior, and what is not. It is a complete list of dos and don'ts, what he considers righteous, and what he considers unrighteous. The Prophets and Writings contain instruction in righteousness, but no where near to the extent that Torah does. So when Paul states that scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, and people today are returning to Torah to live as they believe God desires them to....why is this an issue for others? All we want is to walk as close to "in the will" of God as we can, and that instruction comes from Torah as elaborated on by Yahshua and the Apostolic writers.

Bosco

Too many wrap up the word torah into some type of Jewish only thing at least thats what I get told a lot. I read a journal somewhere that said the phrasing 'under the law' is getting a new look and many are starting to see the mainstream interpertation is not really what it means. I wanted to post the link to that but its a subscription only site and I wasn't allowed to post it. I wonder myself a lot why this is such an issue for some and don't have any real good answers. I read the Psalms and see how David felt and read about blessed righteousness and how we can delight in His commandments and how His descendants will be blessed. We are called also to be that righteousness and even though we cannot obtain full and true righteousness in this body we certainly can learn and follow those laws that lead us to that.

Firstfruits
Mar 24th 2009, 03:53 PM
So when America won the revolution war, the constitution was established. Does that mean we don't abide in it?

Do we accept the words of Christ as God said we should, or is what Jesus said not the word of God knowing that Jesus is God?

Jn 6:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
Mar 24th 2009, 03:54 PM
The only Jewish thing about Torah is that it was given to the Jew first.

Golly, where have I heard that before????

manichunter
Mar 24th 2009, 03:55 PM
I have to ask - what about all the men and women who had hearts that loved the Lord and sought Him and the knowledge of Him for the past 2,000 years? Do you really think they were "blinded" by their religious dogma and kept their love in a box? Really? Do you really think God would not recognize the sincerity of their heart and reveal truth to them?

This line of thinking confuses me.


This is indeed true but there is missing part. God is the rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him. However, zeal and emotionalism are not the same thing. They are carnal, and often get confused with true spiritual seeking. That is why the Scriptute say that you can have zeal but not according to knowledge. The missing ingrediant is character of holiness in the seeker. It goes hand in hand with seeking. Hence, one who seeks also has to be clean before God in order to receive.

So, yes a lot received from God, and what would surprise you is that most of them are not recorded in mainstream history. We all know the champions of christianity, however, most of them are within the confines of certain boxes as well.

bosco
Mar 24th 2009, 06:02 PM
Too many wrap up the word torah into some type of Jewish only thing at least thats what I get told a lot. I read a journal somewhere that said the phrasing 'under the law' is getting a new look and many are starting to see the mainstream interpertation is not really what it means. I wanted to post the link to that but its a subscription only site and I wasn't allowed to post it. I wonder myself a lot why this is such an issue for some and don't have any real good answers. I read the Psalms and see how David felt and read about blessed righteousness and how we can delight in His commandments and how His descendants will be blessed. We are called also to be that righteousness and even though we cannot obtain full and true righteousness in this body we certainly can learn and follow those laws that lead us to that.

It should get a new look. If I am speeding and get caught and fined, I am guilty "under the law." But does that mean the law is gone when I don't speed anymore? No, it means I am no longer guilty under that law, just as Christians are no longer guilty under Torah. The condemnation of sin, the penalty of death, this we have been excused from, pardoned. But a pardon doesn't abrogate the law, it is still un-lawfull to steal or serve other gods! That is why Messiah said he didn't come to abolish or destroy the law, he knew (he should, he gave it in the first place) that stealing or serving other gods was still a lawless action! That's why he said said "ALL the LAW and PROPHETS hang on these two." Those two simply summed up the rest.

Bosco