Natzarene Jews and Modern Binding of the Old Jewish Covenant

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Natzarene Jews and Modern Binding of the Old Jewish Covenant

Post by email » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:17 pm

[continuation of previous question, "Did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper after He observed Passover?". -- grand_puba]

m273p15c,

I have no ill-will toward you and do not feel that you have any toward me, but we simply need to come to terms with "agreeing to disagree". Lest we continue in disregard, attempting to correct one another.

I hold the same zeal for worship that entails "spirit and truth" as yourself, and yes, it saddens me also to some extent. I am not throwing any stones..so please don't feel that way.

I may have assumed that you were picking up on my use of the name Yeshua, but maybe not to the extent I believed you would... I will likely not "seek a common salvation and unity in Jesus" as you speak.

The reason is simple...the gospel of "Jesus Christ" is not the same gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach (a.k.a. Jesus the Messiah) for mainly one simple reason...it is a replacement theology that attempts to do away with God's law and creates a "lawless" gospel. Christianity as it stands today has enveloped the belief of pagan practices and false forms of worship. Destroyed the true faith as given to the apostles. The Hellenistic concepts of immortal souls and everlasting hellfire, Xmas and Easter and many other such practices are so far from the truth of the Great Commission, that it perils my very soul.

Yeshua came to this earth to show mankind how simple walking in the "Torah of Grace" really was. That he wasn't here to abolish the law (Torah):

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Everyone wants to believe it's not possible to live a sinless life...with the blood of Yeshua as our Salvation, it is entirely so possible...even if one's walk is not perfect:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

(Please note that "blameless" doesn't mean without sin, it simply means they sacrificed animals when their sin required it...through Yeshua we no longer require these sacrifices, therefore we can also walk blameless)

So, where does this leave us now? I just feel that we are both moving in different directions in our walk with Yeshua. I have come to a sense of peacefulness where I am and really don't want to, as you say "muddy up any waters". I am a full-fledged Sabbath Keeper, Feast Celebrator and worship and study His Word daily...I have the 10 commandments on my doorposts, on my wrists and most importantly "between my eyelets" (no tattoos between my eyes, lol) I wear tzitzit (fringes) on my garments, but you won't find me putting a Xmas tree in my house, I won't lie about Santa Claus or hide easter eggs, or put a Hannukiah (9 branch manorah) in my window to celebrate a false "myth" about 8 days of oil burning in the temple. I don't relish in the "Star of David", recognize Rabbinic Jewish holidays, I don't wear a keppa, but may consider someday using a tallit (prayer shawl) when in deep prayer. I am not a Messianic, I look just like any other guy. What I am is what one might call a Natzarene, one that lives out the true faith brought down by the apostles to the early ekklesia, just as Paul the Apostle (once a Pharisee) said to Tertullus in Acts 24:14:

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Acts 24:14 NLV "But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult[heresy]. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets.

Yahuah (God) bless you and continue to show you truth through His Ruach HaKodesh (Set-apart Spirit).

P.S. I really did enjoy your article on "The Lord's Supper"! :) It's a fine piece of literature!
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:03 am

You may be surprised to learn that I also take a "restorational" view of the church; in that, I also seek to perform God's will as originally delivered and obeyed in the first century. I also have no use for Christmas, Easter, and many other traditions and doctrines that were introduced into the church in later years by the Catholics, who sought to appease the pagans, and by the intellectuals, who were enamored by Grecian thought. God's Word, the Bible, is my standard, and these things, like Easter, cannot even be found in the Bible. (Like you, I also look deeper than the English translation - Acts 12:4; KVJ).

Also, like you, I believe that Christians also have a law - a law unto Christ (I Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2). I have spent a lot of time discussing the folly of Calvinism and those who would separately us completely from any spiritual law or responsibility. However, my understanding from Scripture is that the Old Law and Covenant were fulfilled and put away. They stand as examples for our learning (Romans 15:4), but not as authority for our obeying.

Yes, Jesus kept the law, even perfectly; however, He was born under the law (Galatians 4:4), and that was always the plan: that He fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). However, He was and is the end of the law, in many ways (Romans 10:4). The law only ended, when He died on the cross (Romans 7:1-4), so naturally, He would have obeyed the law His whole life.

The Jewish Christians following Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, also generally kept the law, but that was not required. It was only permitted for their own consciences' sake (I Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14). Although Paul himself kept the lawand purposefully demonstrated such to the Jews (Acts 21:15-26), he always denounced and condemned those who would require it - the Judaizing Christians (Acts 15). The Gentiles had no responsibility unto the law whatsoever:
Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Galatians 2:3-5)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4)

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. ... "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment -- ... (Acts 15:1-2,)
I am sure you are familiar with the many passages that deal with Paul's and James' struggles with the Judaizers. So, my questions are this:
  • First, not to be unkind, but getting to the point, "How are you different than first century Judaizers?"
  • Second, if the law has been "broken" enough to allow different sacrifices and a different order of High Priest, then is it not completely broken (Hebrews 7:11-14; 10:1-18)? How do you decide what to keep and what to throw away? Where is your authority?
As background, and to help you know where I am going, my beliefs on these points are elaborated here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ents2.html

I look forward to learning about your view. I have not had a chance to discuss it with anyone previously.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c

P.S., please also see: http://cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/cpco ... thew517-19
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:51 pm

Brother m273p15c!

It will be my pleasure to "change gears" for a while :) It will take me a couple of days to gather some stuff I'd like you to look at... Let's start out with a thought or two...If you'll agree that we are to "...walk as Yeshua walked..."

Yeshua was a Jew...(he was NOT a "christian", as you are aware...he was a Natzarene)

Then we must take a look at what "Judaism" really is. Is it a religion? Is it a Race? Is it a Nation?

Look that over and I'll get back with you in a couple of days.

Bless you for being such a gentlemen, and glad to see you don't follow the secular holidays!
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:18 pm

Depending on what you mean, yes, I believe Jesus left us an example, that we should follow in His footsteps (John 13:15 I Peter 2:21) - at least in some points. However, I think Jesus did certain things, which I cannot or should not, so there would be some stipulations on that broad statement...

I look forward to reading what you prepare.

Thanks!

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:41 am

m273p15c,

So sorry I haven't gotten back with you lately! I've been very busy attending to matters of a personal nature.

I read your article on "Old and New Testaments"....what can I say? You are very well deceived!

To believe that "Christ" did away with the "Old Testament" is certainly a foolish view to hold onto. For Yeshua himself spoke that he came not to destroy the law (Torah), but to fulfill it.

The biggest problem most people face is that they for some reason believe that the Old Testament (Tanak) was just for the Jews. This is as far from the truth as one can assess. If you look at most of the commands given they include a statement "...and the stranger that dwells among you...", that's very far from excluding any Gentiles (goyim = nations) or other peoples from the covenant rules or blessings. Don't get me wrong, the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob regarding seed, family and land were promises given to the Jews, of that there is no doubt or concern.

In your articles, you present the makings of a "lawless" messiah, and I'm sorry m273p15cbut until you grasp the fact that your Maker and King holds you responsible for a multitude of teachings, instruction and education (Torah a.k.a. "Law") that were given on Mt. Sinai, long before the coming of Yeshua, you are propagating a "false Messiah" and face a very fierce judgment by God.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19 KJV

Of those laws regarding the "circumcised" and what you believe in Romans states that the 10 commandments were "done away with" (I'm sorry sir, but I can't even begin to fathom or touch upon this subject at this juncture). To fully understand what the "laws" and what the "circumcised" (or "cuttings/cut ones") Paul and Peter fussed about really are you should study more things "jewish". The main reason that so many are confused with the Tanak (OT) and the Brit'Chadasha (NT) is that the continue to look at it from a Hellenized, Greek Orthodox perspective.

First, learn about what the meaning of "gezerot" is here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 3&letter=G

Then you may even want to investigate where the word "christian" actually comes from and how it was derived. Take a look into the text of the Codex Sinaiticus a little further and you'll find that the original word was actually "chrestian" which simply refers to "good man" or perhaps "moral person". Constantine did a wonderful job wreaking havoc by ordering observance of a state religion of his own making (Constantine was a pagan ya know). The followers of the Apostle Paul were in no way Christians as so many feel they can proclaim, ALL of the apostles were in fact Natzaraya Jews.

Acts 24:14 (NLT)
- "But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets.

Look for yourself at the edits that were made to change the word "chrestian" in the history books, I have attached screenshots from the website. http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Examine closely the text in the three places that the word "Christian" is presented in your bible. Then maybe we can talk some more. However if you feel compelled to try and "teach me" that the "Old" is done away with and the "New" is all I need to concern myself with, you are sadly mistaken and I will no longer listen to what you have to say. After reading Hebrews 8:13, you should continue right on through to Hebrews 10:31, and please don't miss a beat, to get the whole picture.

I'm very sorry if I seem "attitudinal" m273p15c, I don't mean to come across as arrogant or abusive, but I so take it to heart when someone is out there teaching false doctrines due to lack of knowledge. Please continue your studies further and you will be greatly enriched with wisdom.

Please feel free to respond, as I don't attempt to stifle anyone's opinions or comments on what I say or do when it comes to theology. You have my ear if you're honestly willing to seek the truth and gain further insight.

Shalom!
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:51 am

I picked out three logical arguments from your note for maintaining the Old Law:
  1. Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17-19).
  2. Paul believed the Old Law (law of Moses) (Acts 24:14).
  3. Any NT denouncements against the "law" are in actuality, a denouncement of the Pharisees' "fence", or "gerzot". (I assume this is what you meant by the URL, as I have heard this previously.)
In brief, my responses are:
  1. Jesus' statement is qualified, "until all is fulfilled". Given the other statements in the NT, which affirm that the OT has been fulfilled and annulled, I would assume that the old law has been completely fulfilled. I am sure that you will stagger at such a thought, but please do not be "slow to believe" (Luke 24:25-27). If you disagree, please point out any part of the Old Law (law of Moses), which has not been fulfilled.
  2. I also believe everything written in the Old Law. Just because it was fulfilled and annulled, we should not assume that it is inaccurate. I fully believe that everything written in the Old Testament is both accurate and helpful. In fact, I use it regularly as a teacher of God's Word (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:11-12, 6). Furthermore, I use the fulfilled prophecies of the OT, as one of the principal proofs of Scriptures' inspiration (II Peter 1:16-21; 3:1-2). The only thing that changed was its authority and applicability as law. Furthermore, I would not object to anyone keeping the Old Law as matter of custom or tradition. Like Paul, people are free to keep the law, provided they neither require it nor understand it as necessary (Galatians 2:1-5; 5:1-4).
  3. Yes, scribes and Pharisees established a fence around the law, and Jesus took issue with it, wherever it contradicted God's law (Matthew 15:1-14). However, wherever the Old Law was proclaimed as fulfilled, annulled, or abolished, it was always described as the "law". I would be happy to examine the context of each of these passages, showing that generally no other law was under discussion but the law of Moses - not the Pharisaical perversion of it. If you are asserting that Paul and the other apostles were arguing against a perversion of the law, could you please sustain your claim with context?
BTW, as I explained previously, neither I nor Jesus are lawless. A New Law was established as the terms of the New Covenant (I Corinthians 9:19-22). Just because the law I maintain is not the law you affirm, you should not consider me lawless.

Your elitist statements of presupposed, infallible correctness do not offend. (I contend the identity of the false teacher in this discussion is yet to be determined.) I dismiss such debate tactics out of hand as emotional outbursts or dishonest intimidation. They have no relation to the truth, one way or the other, realizing that I may also slip up with such statements, for I also am a man of weakness. All I ultimately care about is: "How do you read?", and "What saith the Scripture?" Everything else is "muddying the waters".

May God bless us with a sincere love of the truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:19 pm

Ok m273p15c, I'll play this little game of "hide the truth and seek the false" with you if you so desire. May it all bring praise and glory to God as you discover the truth...

1. I totally agree with your examination that Yeshua's words were indeed qualified, however, I believe you fail to see just how "qualified" they were: "...until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will by no means pass..." As far as I'm concerned, as I would expect you can observe, both heaven and earth ar still here...therefore your argument is mute.

2. Please show me even one example as you so profess that all of the OT is fulfilled and annulled. There is no doubt that certain prophecies were fulfilled throughout, but I see no changes to the "law", as a matter of fact, with regards to your "testament/will" postulate you should perhaps refer to a cross reference for Hebrews 9:17 which is Gal 3:15 and reads:

"Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case."

Now we could carry on with the promises made to Abraham and his seed being Christ and the law being unable to produce righteousness in a man, for if it could bring life there would have been a law unto righteousness... I should hope that we both know this isn't about becoming righteous through the observance of the Torah. I can only emphasis that the only way to become righteous in the eyes of God is through the shed blood of Yeshua HaMashiac. But again, it doesn't nullify the purpose of the Torah, that which is to teach, educate and instruct.

3. I will perhaps further elaborate on this issue in a future email. Actually several laws were spoken of by Paul...for example in Romans 7, Paul speaks of two laws...one of God and one of sin that leads to death. You have so poorly interpreted the meaning of Romans 7 and 8 that it actually scares me for the saving of your soul. What Paul speaks of with regards to the law is that without the law one would not be able to identify sin itself. (Romans 7:7) Without the Torah, Paul states further, he would have not even known what sin was....for apart from the torah, sin was dead. Paul constantly battles his flesh in this context to show that by living in the Spirit one is free from the "letter" of the torah (which first and foremost identified Paul's sins) and that man can now live "apart from the law" by living a life that is not condemned by the "law". The battle that rages on in Paul is that of his flesh vs. his spirit. "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin." (Romans 7:25)

Now please do continue on into the next chapter: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do no walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1-2)

God condemns sin in the flesh, but sending his son (8:3), that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (8:4). But does that nulify the purpose of the law? God forbid, for the law was not for the righteous, but for the sinner. Jesus was not sent to save the righteous but to save the sinner. Therefore the law is ALWAYS in effect for the sinner to recognize his own sins. For once again, without the law, sin was dead. You can not nulify by any means that which establishes what sin IS.

So again, you fail in your argument (with what little I can understand of it) that the OT "law" (actually the Torah itself) has be, as you say, fulfilled and done away with. The taking of our sin upon himself and the sacrifice required for it's atonement was the fulfillment made by Christ at the cross. Without the Torah to identify sin, man would by no means be able to establish his walk in the Spirit, for he would not know where he transgresses the "law" for the transgression of the law is sin itself. (1 John 3:4)

Now, as for my actual topic of discussion in the email which you failed to address:

1. Please verify your understanding of the words used to represent the "circumcised" within the scriptures (in both texts) and I will elaborate further on this point of the discussion later.

2. You have nonetheless strayed from the major focus of the discussion, which was the origins of "Christianity". Have you no comment whatsoever on my attachments as presented? Or is this topical shift a "red herring" to avoid the topic completely?

3. What "law" is it exactly that you claim to follow that makes you feel that you are not lawless? For it is said...and I READ:

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.


Please expound on this as you may.

In Yeshua.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:46 am

Wow! There's no end to your condescension. I really don't care what you think of me, but with your heart so hardened, I cannot help but respond. What makes you think I am trying to "hide the truth and seek the false"?

You and I are both busy, I am sure. We have both engaged these types of discussions. If I overlook some point you made, I only do so by accident or to cut through the signal noise. Some things you mention are inconclusive. Other points are "wild goose chases". What does it prove if "Christians" really meant, "good moral people"? Does that make the Old Testament more viable? Not remotely! Let's concentrate on the points that really matter.

1. Your interpretation would be correct, if it was written like so:
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law."
But, it does not read like that, does it?
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Grammatically, there is no way to isolate the fulfillment clause. Either clause could end the law's authority. For example, if I say:
For assuredly, I say to you, till I die, I will work till I don't need money.
You know what is meant. Either death or the absence of need can end my labor. If I inherit a gazillion dollars, would anyone think I was a liar, when I handed in my resignation notice?

If "all is fulfilled", then heaven and earth don't have to pass away. The law is done! It's mission and purpose are fulfilled!

2. You requested passages that show that the OT is fulfilled and annulled, or that show changes to the "law". I offer these few (there are several more):
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ... Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:1-10).
The word for "first" is singular, as is "second". (Therefore, "first" cannot refer to "sacrifices", which is plural.) The first law, the old law, was taken away to establish a new law, the second law. Jesus did so in His very sacrifice, as was foretold. ... If the sacrifices of the Old Law are "taken away" (Gr, anaireo, do away with, abolish, annul, to invalidate), then the Old Law was taken away, because it was built upon the priesthood and the sacrifices. Dispute? Please continue, but first note the above passage: It is the first - what? law! - that was done away to establish - what? a second law! We are still under law, but a different law!
... Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:11-19)
According to this inspired writer, if the priesthood was changed, which is beyond all dispute, then the law is necessarily changed! The New Covenant is built on a better hope, a better priesthood, and a better sacrifice. It also offers a better promise!
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:6-13)
Please tell me, since you know the Torah, what percentage of the law, commandments, and ordinances is related to priesthood, sacrifices, blessings and the covenant? What percentage is left after those are taken away, abolished, annulled, and obsoleted? I think you know my point without having to do the math. The vast majority of the law's commands are based in these things. If they are taken away, then so is the law! ... This means that the commands of the old law contain no more authority as law for us today. However, that does not mean that some of those laws cannot reappear and reauthorized in a new law. For example, please consider the commands of Romans 13:8-10, which arise from Jesus' command to love each other(John 15:12-14), not the authority of Old Law itself.

Keep in mind your proof text, Matthew 5:17-19. If I can prove that just one command (even one jot or tittle) of the law is done away, what do we know? All is fulfilled! Or, heaven and earth has passed away, which has obviously not occurred. The burden of proof for me is to show only one part of the law that has changed, because it all stands and falls as a unit (Matthew 5:18; James 2:10; Galatians 5:3).[/quote]
Elsewhere you affirm:
email wrote:... the shed blood of Yeshua HaMashiac. But again, it doesn't nullify the purpose of the Torah, that which is to teach, educate and instruct.
Yes, actually Christ's blood does nullify the purpose of the Old Law. Admittedly, the Old Law does teach, educate, and instruct, but its scope was limited and ultimately superseded. Your statement flatly contradicts Scripture:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)
The law did teach, but its teaching is done. Christ has come. All the promises to Abraham, especially including the seed promise, have long been fulfilled (Galatians 3:16-19). Lessons concerning law in general, justice, punishment, mercy, weakness, and faith can still be learned, but the Old Law, as law, has been replaced by the New Law of Christ:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (I Corinthians 9:19-22).
Here we see that there are multiple, potential "laws of God". Specifically, there is the Jewish law, the law of Moses, but there is also the law of Christ. Paul exhibited the flexibility to lay down "the law" as an outward custom. However, he still was under a law to God, which was Christ's law. Therefore, it is by this new law, Christ's law that people may learn what is right, wrong, and required of them today. Its commands bind, not those of the Old Law. Consequently, the argument that knowledge of sin is impossible without the Old Law is dispelled. Paul, a Jew, came to know sin through the law of Moses, but that does not mean it was the only way for everyone to know sin:
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 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 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, 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) (Romans 2:12-15)
If "the law" was the only way to know sin, then all Gentiles before Jesus would be justified!

Incidentally, we see from the previous verse (I Corinthians 9:19-22) that "the law" is no longer the "law of God", because without it, Paul did not qualify as being under "law unto God" without being "under law toward Christ"! Furthermore, consider Paul's statement about circumcision:
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (I Corinthians 7:17-19)
Circumcision was part of the Old Law and part of the commandments of God. If circumcision is nothing, then the only logical conclusion is that the Old Law is no longer commanded by God! Otherwise, heaven and earth have passed away, and we overlooked it.

As you noted, the law could not be simply "set aside" as a mere whim (Galatians 3:15-17). It had to be fulfilled! It it was indeed set aside, then logically, we know it was fulfilled:
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)
3. Yes, I agree there are multiple laws under discussion in the New Testament. Please see above for examples. However, please tell me which "law" was done away in this passage?
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:1-7)
Which law are we dead to here? Which law said, "Thou shall not covet?" The perverted law of the Pharisees? The "fence"? No, Jews died to the law that contained the 10 commandments! If not, please tell me which "law" is the subject of this verse, which taught, "You shall not covet."

Likewise, revisiting the above verses, which "law" established the priesthood, ordained the sacrifices, offered promises? Was this the fence?

... Furthermore, you seem to wish to have your cake and eat it too, when you say this:
Paul constantly battles his flesh in this context to show that by living in the Spirit one is free from the "letter" of the torah (which first and foremost identified Paul's sins) and that man can now live "apart from the law" by living a life that is not condemned by the "law". The battle that rages on in Paul is that of his flesh vs. his spirit. "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin." (Romans 7:25)

Now please do continue on into the next chapter: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do no walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1-2)

God condemns sin in the flesh, but sending his son (8:3), that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (8:4).
The law of Moses justified only those who kept it perfectly:
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." (Galatians 3:10-12)
Obviously I accept that the "just lived by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4). Even in the Old Law, they were not redeemed by their faith according to the Old Law. Only Jesus' sacrifice atoned for their sins by their faith, not by their observance of the Old Law (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15). If you accept that, then you accept a change in the Old Law, a new form of justification, which must be according to a new covenant and a new law, which means the Old Law must have been fulfilled; otherwise, you are cherry picking.

...

I hope you see now why I pick certain points to which I respond. It is not to avoid or change the issue, but rather, I am seeking to crystallize and precipitate the central, fundamental, and key issue. Jesus had a divine knack for driving to the heart of all issues in an incredibly concise and perceptive way. I suggest we try to do the same - not bludgeon each other to death with mountains of email. Can we identify and focus on the key issue? To me, the key issue is, "Is the OT abolished?" If so, in what way does it persist? What is the New Law? etc.

I did not even realize these points were under discussion. Maybe I overlooked them?
Now, as for my actual topic of discussion in the email which you failed to address:

1. Please verify your understanding of the words used to represent the "circumcised" within the scriptures (in both texts) and I will elaborate further on this point of the discussion later.

2. You have nonetheless strayed from the major focus of the discussion, which was the origins of "Christianity". Have you no comment whatsoever on my attachments as presented? Or is this topical shift a "red herring" to avoid the topic completely?
Regardless, unless these points somehow undermine the passages above, about the law of Moses, I do not see how they are relevant. If you want to pursue them, you will have to make it more germane.
3. What "law" is it exactly that you claim to follow that makes you feel that you are not lawless? For it is said...and I READ:

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
In I John 2, who is the "him", who is "known" and "commands" in the context?
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (I John 2:1-5)
Please note that Jesus is our propitiation and the substantive for most of the masculine third person pronouns in this text. Jesus, He is the propitiation for our sins. Jesus was the One who spoke to us. He is the one who demonstrated the "walk". He is the one, whose commands. i.e., law, we are to obey. This harmonizes with the teaching of a second law, Christ's law, as explained above.
Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Jesus was a Jew, as was this man (he knew the commandments). They both lived before the cross; therefore, they were obligated to keep the commands as Jews. This has no bearing on people who lived after the cross (Romans 7:1-7, etc.).

I look forward to hearing from you, as you have time.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth - my prayer and my aim,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:26 am

I have only short words for you dearest m273p15c,

I am truly sorry for your soul...

Keep in mind your proof text, Matthew 5:17-19. If I can prove that just one command (even one jot or tittle) of the law is done away, what do we know? All is fulfilled! Or, heaven and earth has passed away, which has obviously not occurred. The burden of proof for me is to show only one part of the law that has changed, because it all stands and falls as a unit (Matthew 5:18; James 2:10; Galatians 5:3).

In reference to:
James 2:10 If you break one aspect of Torah (law), you simply break Torah (law)...Kinda like the laws of this great nation of ours, you break the speed limit, you break the law of the land, either way you slice it, you broke the law and cannot deny that truth...pretty straightforward.
Gal 5:3 Were you not circumcised in the heart? Therefore would you not be considered a debtor to do the whole law?

My proof text has proof in and of itself.

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

You obviously continue to misread this context to imply that "fulfillment" is just Christ dying on a cross and then everyone can "love" and be happy. There is so much to be said for what prophecies have yet to be fulfilled in not only our time but assuredly the lifetimes of others as well, prior to Yeshua's return. Therefore all is not fulfilled as you seem to believe in your heart of hearts (of which I'm sure you have a big one), and will not be until He returns to destroy both Heaven and Earth. You just don't seem to understand that truth, but then by only considering English grammatical context, it is inevitable.

You ask of the Law Paul spoke of?...once again, the law of sin and death vs. the law of God....the law that is "abolished" is that of sin and death...very simple really. The commands that were abolished? The command to provide the sacrifices...not the commandment that the sacrifice was for. A second and different law? Certainly, one that doesn't require sacrifices. (Though you better read up on unfulfilled prophecies there!) The laws purpose before the seed? To punish those in sin before the Messiah would come to take away that sin...granting a doorway for all to open IF one lives according to the law, now written in their hearts (conscience), allowing them access to the tree of life. However there is no way to write a law that doesn't exist into someone's heart now is there? In one breath you say you don't follow the 10 commandments because they've been abolished, yet in the same breath you say you have law...what law do you think you have?

Romans 10:8-13? Sure I know them very well, for all the law rests upon the two basic principles of loving God and loving neighbor as self, but then again that's nothing new. (Deut 6:5, Lev 19:18), however, most people tend to gravitate toward that theory.

I'm sorry m273p15c, but it's certainly time for me to follow scripture on this regard and not even bother with this matter any longer.
Mat 10:11-20 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
And when ye come into a house, salute it.
And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds);
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Perhaps someday you will realize that true liberty comes through obedience and not through "grace alone". I do feel you have some assemblage of an obedient man (and certainly not to say you aren't for the most part, that's why I had hopes!) and you have done much study in the English texts. But you are far from finished with your studies, just as I myself. Your circular reasoning through English contexts and grammatical structure has begun to put a rather sour taste in my mouth and I'm done repeating myself over and over again, when all I get when I specify an answer to your questions, is for you to ignore the answer and move to another verse to recompense. Study the corruptions that have taken place in scripture and other holy texts throughout the ages and you may just see for yourself why you shouldn't rely solely on English translations of the Bible. Good concordance in hand or not.

Most of what you have posted here is simply proof that the law doesn't justify anyone to God, which is exactly what I professed to in my last email. I don't observe Torah to justify myself to Him, I observe His laws and remain obedient to them because I love my Creator and what His Son did for me at the cross. You're creating a straw man to fight here. I'm not part of that fight, so I bow out of the ring gracefully.

I follow Him (Re: Matt 8:22). I shall continue to abide in the lawful, loving Messiah I have come to know in the scriptures. I am through here.

Yah bless you and yours and continue to show you truth.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:26 am

Did Jesus not say Himself that He came to fulfill the law?
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)
Did Jesus fail to do what He promised to do?

Also, please keep in mind that the Greek word for "destroy" (kataluo, complete ruin, demolish, dismantle) in Matthew 5:17 is far more intense than the annulment or passing away spoken of in Hebrews 10:9 (Gr., anaireo, do away with, abolish, annul, to invalidate). Therefore, Matthew 5:17 is not even applicable, since I am not remotely suggesting that it has been destroyed. I still read, study, and learn from it (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:6,11).

Please show me one prophecy of the Torah that has not been fulfilled. I can show you a handful of prophecies in the New Testament that have not been fulfilled, but all the prophecies of the Torah have been fulfilled: The promises to Abraham, land, nation and Seed (Genesis 12:1-8; 13:14-15; 15:18; 22:16-18; 26:1-5; Exodus 23:30-31; Joshua 21:43-45; II Chronicles 9:26; Nehemiah 9:7-8; Galatians 3:16, 19, 24-25); and the promises of the Messiah (Isaiah 53 and many more similar). Please show me a prophecy from the Torah that remains unfulfilled? Or, please show me a part of the law that Jesus did not satisfy (Romans 8:3-4; 10:4)?

Please do not be "slow to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25-27). I plead with you. Please pause and consider the text in all honesty, before you dismiss it out of hand without "hearing the matter" (Proverbs 18:13).

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12),

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:28 pm

m273p15c,

My husband is honoring the scripture to wipe the dust of his feet of those who refuse to listen to YHWH's truth, but, as he has shared these emails with me I am going to respond this once and will not go back and forth with you, as it is clear that your desire is to "teach" and not learn. Since what you "teach" has been thoroughly studied and proven to be false there is really no need for you to expound any further, as we have "been there done that" to come to where we are now.....meaning that we have studied the scriptures you present from every angle, inside and out, back and forth, using original text, and your understanding is false, there really is no two ways about it. It is as is said in John 4:22
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. It is unbelievably arrogant for a "gentile" to tell a Jew, who believes in Yeshua as Messiah, that they don't understand the Torah and the Apostles! It is amazing to see that you miss, in the text you yourself give, the truth, you answer your own questions yet fail to see and understand it, it is a clear fulfillment of the scripture John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

However, as it is my nature to always try to see the good in people, my hope is that at some point you will come to see the errors of your beliefs and come into truth, I will leave you with a practical way of looking at the word "fulfill" as it is spoken of by The Messiah....picture this: On the road out side our home the speed limit is 45. Now, I am a law abiding citizen so I am not under the "penalty" of the law for speeding and have no worries about being given a ticket (consequences for breaking the law) for speeding. So, I drive 45, as is the law, I have therefore "FULFILLED" the law, now does that mean that because I have fulfilled the law the speed limit is no longer in affect and everyone else is free from it, or that the next time I drive on this road I can drive at what ever speed I choose? Of course not! The law still stand.,Now if they tear out this road (as in heaven and earth pass away) THEN it will no longer have a speed limit because there is no longer a road, so no need for a speed limit! Until there is NO more sin in this world, when a "New Heaven and New Earth" are created, the Law (Torah) will always remain!

It seems that your bible does not contain the book of Danial and Ezekiel or that you over look it, or even Amos, as those prophecies have certainly NOT been fulfilled, so obviously ALL is not fulfilled....

Again, along with my husband encouraging you to study outside the English texts, I would encourage you to find a good Jewish mentor to teach you the truth...not a Messianic, but rather a Natzraya Jew.. but only if you can admit that you don't know it all and want to learn.

Shalom.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Natzryah Jews and Modern Binding of the Old, Jewish Covenant

Post by m273p15c » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:02 pm

Thank for your time and your husband's time. I imagine this discussion has been stressful. Crises of conscience will be, although I am sure you do not see it that way.

It's ironic to me, than many of the passages you mentioned came to my mind as well. Similarly, I feel completely honest and vindicated by this discussion, as I believe I have answered with virtually every logical point made according to Scripture. In fact, I judge that I am dealing with arrogant people, who fulfill other verses (I Timothy 1:7). I also stagger at the unbelief I have witnessed. So, please do not assume the high, moral ground.

Yes, my Bible does indeed contain Daniel, Ezekiel, and Amos, and I believe those prophecies have already been fulfilled in the opening of the Messianic age or sooner, for example (Daniel 11:31; 12:11; Matthew 24:15, foretells destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A.D., which Jesus wrought). If your husband had not dismissed me out of hand so rashly, we could have examined some of these. But, I am too different from you for you to even fathom, so you dismiss me...

Yes, salvation may have been of the Jews, but that day has come and gone. A new day with a new law has come, as Jesus foretold! Physical Jerusalem is no longer what matters. Worshiping in truth and spirit is what matters - not location - which could not be said under the Old Law:
Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:21-24)
I am persuaded that if we could have continued this discussion slowly, carefully, respectfully, and patiently, we could have gotten some where, but that requires not having a closed mind nor dismissing someone's views out of hand, doesn't it?

As you said, we each have given up hope in this discussion progressing further, because we judge the other unreachable. You can read examples of apostles doing such, and I can read other similar passages (Acts 28:23-29; II Thessalonians 2:9-12). I will not deny your sincerity nor zeal, even though I question its accuracy (Romans 10:1-4). What does such sentiments prove? Nothing about the truth that matters. It only that we are both convicted in what we believe, and we both believe that we are right and the other is wrong. I appreciate your appeal and care for my soul; consequently, I hope you can sympathize with my appeal for you and your husband.

So, with that, I also "wipe the dust off my feet" and move on, hoping, praying, and trusting that God will somehow make all this right, for I have done the best that I could to convince you of the truth, while I did my best to honestly handle the arguments presented to me. :sigh: Who knows? Maybe seed carried away by the birds today, will find the ground more fertile another day? I pray so.

Thanks for caring and trying also. :-)

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12),

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:11 am

Hi again,

I had to share one last thought, a story, before I turned the page on this exchange.

Like you, my wife reads many of the Bible studies, in which I participate, via email. As we were driving to worship tonight, our conversation went like this:
Me: Did you see the latest email?

My wife: Yeah, they are so crazy. They didn't answer any of your questions!

Me: Yeah, but the scary part is that I have no doubt that they are fully convinced and persuaded in what they believe. In fact, they look at me just as you described them.

My wife: Yeah, the world is full of people like that.

Me: No, you misunderstand me. It's scary, because how do I know I am not like that too?
Then we proceeded to discuss self-examination, its necessity, its form, etc. - checking to see if we had deceived ourselves, or if I had dealt rashly or dishonestly in this discussion. I assure you that I will continue to reflect on this, for I know I will stand before the Lord some day and give an account.

I hope somewhere, somehow you will reflect on this discussion too. I share this, because I fear that I did not even cause you to pause, much less examine yourself. ... I don't know. Maybe you did. Hopefully, you will. ...

I guess I am a little like you, at least in this regard. It's hard for me to give up on people. :-) Sorry, for the "one last, desperate" email bit, but it's who I am.

I pray we cross paths with better news some day.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:16 pm

Shalom,

Haha, this is the "crazy" lady again, :-) .... No offense taken by the way, I am sure we do come off that way in your eyes....in fact, I woke up this morning, not knowing you had emailed again, thinking about the email exchanges and how I didn't feel I really made myself clear.

Okay, first let me explain why you have not been a "road bump" for us, by giving you some background on myself. I have studied and taught the Word for more than 20 years. Never satisfied to accept just whatever the "preacher/teacher" put before me, always questioning things that didn't add up. My studies have ranged from Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, New Age and Pentecostal, so you can trust that it has been diverse and thorough. The very things you have presented are things I use to teach myself! The arguments you gave are similar arguments that I would give (less some of your perceptions)! I too thought that English, along with concordance in hand, should be good enough..... But there were things that, without stretching to accept what some "scholar" said something meant, just didn't line up. I always studied with several different versions spread out before me and one day I came across a scripture that sooo clearly showed the bias of interpreters/translators, that I knew I could no longer trust the English versions alone. I also realized that I had to examine the WALL of bricks (no little speed bump) that had been built by all the doctrines I had studied and been taught.

The scripture is Proverbs 30:23, in some translations it speaks of a wife who is "unloved" and in others it is translated as a wife who is "hateful" or an "unlovable" women, VERY different meanings. I knew I had to dig deeper and I had to start by emptying out every thing I had ever thought was right, scraping the bottom of the garbage bucket to be sure there was nothing left that I was holding on to. Obviously this "wall" had to be examined brick by brick to see what is true and what is not. It had to be from the original source without a biased interpretation. I knew I will one day stand before my Creator and have to give an account for my life, and I knew He would not allow ignorance as a defense, as He tells us to "study to shew thyself approved". It also became clear that I had believed lies based on false doctrine and it was my responsibility to dig until there was no stone left unturned to find out the truth. I could NOT hold onto anything I had been taught as truth, without examining it all first....

This leads me to explain what I meant by "it is unbelievably arrogant for a gentile to tell a Jew, who believes in Yeshua as The Messiah, what is right" We also need to make the point that we are not speaking of a Jew converted to a Christian that has forsaken truth.....I had been teaching for YEARS and some beliefs were still stuck to the bottom of my belief barrel. I had to scrape a little harder to let it all go as I began my quest for the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Who was I to tell my Jewish mentor what the scriptures where "actually" saying?! I questioned him thoroughly, as I always do, but with a desire to learn from someone who clearly had much more authority and knowledge then myself....no place for arrogance or an "I know better then you" attitude! I had soooo longed for a true mentor that I could trust and began to pray for it. For years, when I thought I had found one, very quickly the roles reversed and I became the teacher. So when I came across my mentor I cannot express my gratefulness to the Father! He has truly been an answer to prayer! My husband can tell you that there are things that he has taught me that I would NOT have accepted from anyone else. But this man has long-lived credibility and with every question he had a satisfying, scripturally provable answer that left no room for doubt....There was no "stretching" to have to believe it! "Line upon line, precept upon precept" now made perfect sense! I have not felt such freedom and peace in what I know in all my life!

So with that said, the self examination you speak of started a LONG time ago and does continue today, it will always continue. But, no, you did not cause even the smallest bit of a speed bump...as your arguments had already been studied out to the fullest and were proven false with the original language, idioms and customs of the time of Yeshua. Again, it is arrogant and ignorant of any "gentile", no matter how "educated" they think they are, to believe that they know more about the Jewish culture, language and heritage then the Jews know themselves. If you do not have knowledge of this, the language, heritage etc., along with their idioms you will NOT have a complete and/or correct knowledge of the scriptures, that is just a fact. The fact that you continue to argue your "beliefs" without so much as a consideration that you might be wrong is why you come across as arrogant. You have already admitted that you have not gone so far as to attempt to learn Aramaic or Hebrew, and cling to the translations in English from Greek, refusing to look at the fact that Yeshua and His Apostles were Jews and would have spoken, and written in those two languages.

The bottom line is this, we have already studied out what you believe, in fact we once held and taught your beliefs, you however have NOT studied out our faith from our perspective, but only briefly through bias Christian eyes, if at all. Which is why my husband brought up how "Christians" began, but even that you refused to look at. It wasn't so much about a "good moral person" as it was the fact the Codex had been edited to create a word (christian) that didn't exist in the original. In your zeal to "save" us you continue to look past the answers he DID give to your questions, in fact over and over he answered you, but your tight grip on your beliefs would not allow you to see them. You think we are unteachable and you couldn't be more wrong. It is just that your arguments were nothing new and had been studied out to the fullest. We do not have a problem admitting when we are wrong, in fact we had to go and repent to those we had taught incorrectly, that we were wrong. Not only repent, but also ask Yah for His forgiveness. What we do have a problem with is someone who tries to pull us back into false doctrine, that we will not entertain, even for a moment. My giving you the scripture that "we worship what we know" is because we do KNOW (having fully studied it out) what you believe and it is wrong, you DO NOT truly KNOW (having fully studied it out) what we believe and yet are trying to tell us we are wrong. You give scripture to support your belief without knowing what it actually means because you have not studied it in its original language, without a background into the culture and customs. If you had you would know that what you present is false, based on mistranslations, bias translators, and lack of knowledge from the proper perspective, the people who wrote it and especially who they were writing to.

Let me end this "novel" with this... We never claim, nor do we believe we know it all, not even close. As soon as anyone thinks that, the devil has them right where he wants them. But we do KNOW (having studied it out to the fullest) that Christianity was born as a false religion, continues to teach lawless doctrine and we are to stay clear of false teachers. You were clearly trying to "teach" us and unwilling to learn anything from us and the scriptures say that when someone refuses to accept the teachings of Yeshua (which are to keep the commandments of YHWH...Yeshua The Messiah was NOT sent to usurp YHWH's authority and create His own commandments over YHWH's, that is just clearly false teaching) we are to wipe the dust from our feet and move on. We are however within our rights under YHWH to debate back and forth the Torah, in the context of how we keep it, NOT whether or not to keep it. Therefore our "continued learning" will be under the Torah and learning more and more about the Jewish Messiah and His culture and how to truly "walk as He walked". It will not be in returning to false teachings "as a dog returns to his vomit".

If you truly understand, that as you say you will have to stand before your Lord one day, I would strongly urge you to empty out your "belief bucket" and start over, don't forget to scrape the bottom really good so there is nothing left to contaminate what you are learning!

In closing, please consider these 2 verses taken from our mentor's latest book:
Galatians 2:12 - “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”- KJV

The “circumcision” is typically used by Paul as a dysphemism for certain Jews. However there is something peculiar about this certain group of
Jews that caused fear among ordinary Jews. The term “circumcision” in Aramaic gezurta, is also the same word for “decree”. So it is certainly
possible that this was not simply a reference to their physical circumcision, but was a pun referring to sect of Pharisees, namely the House
of Shammai who strictly enforced a set of decrees known in Hebrew as the gezerot. These decrees forbid close contact between Jews and gentiles, or even converts who were not circumcised. Most translations lead the reader to believe that Peter withdrew from the “gentiles” because
of the presence of some men from James, however that would imply that James subscribed to the fascist decrees of the Shammaite faction of
the Pharisees. The Aramaic text actually says that Peter only followed the decrees when James' liaisons were not present. The confusion there is
because the English idiom is to say “after they left” but in Aramaic it is said “after they came”.

“Beforehand, when some men from Yaqub were present, he ate with the Aramaeans, but afterward, he withdrew and segregated himself because he was afraid of those who were of the decrees.” - Peshitta

Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” - RSV

You may have noticed that in the previous entry instead of “gentile” we provided “Aramaean” which is precisely what the Peshitta text provides, and is merely a transliteration. This term is sometimes used to mean a person who is non-Jewish but otherwise similar in other cultural aspects, such as language. However it is a mistake to translate it anything like heathen or pagan in this context. Aramaeans were the closest ethnic group next to Jews. Here Paul is not making a comparison between the Jewish religion, or Judaism, and some kind of Aramaean religion, but rather was making the point that one's geo-ethnic background, or race, had no bearing in the spiritual kingdom. In fact all believers were considered to be within the realm of Judaism, within the new community called the Nazarenes. Membership in the community was not affected by factors like race, sex, language, status as a slave or free person, rich or poor, but only by faith. Most readers are easily confused over whether “Jew” refers to one's religion, race, citizenry, or something else. In this case we can rule out religion since all Nazarenes are religiously Jews. “There is neither Judean nor Aramean, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for all of you are one in Yeshua the anointed.” - Peshitta
Shalom to you and your wife
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm

I am glad to learn that no offense was taken. I was desperate for you to see how you sounded.

May I ask a few of questions, just for my own understanding? Incidentally, to alleviate any worries, I intend to respond little, if at all. I am basically done. (Why? I judge that I did understand, acknowledge, and even answer your husband's response, but he dismissed them, rather than responding in turn. And, I have already said what I could say about the Scriptures surrounding the core issue of division, as I see it. Unless there is a response, I cannot respond without brawling. Anyway, here are a few "curiosity" questions...)

Do you believe that Gentiles should follow the law as you? Must they become "Jews"? Please feel free to clarify.

Do you think people like me would go to heaven, false teacher or not? Don't worry. I won't cry. :-)

I understand you accept Jesus is the Messiah. Do you accept that the kingdom has come, or are you still looking for the kingdom? (For reference, I read that the kingdom has come, and it is the church.)

I don't understand how you begin to explain the book of Hebrews. How do you? I was really hoping to get an answer on those passages I quoted previously from Hebrews.

How do you pick and choose what parts of the law to follow? I assume you don't offer sacrifices. Obviously, since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, some things are impossible to observe. But, I imagine you have a more scriptural answer than, "I follow what I can." How do you decide what to follow and not follow?

...

Lastly, I made this point with your husband, but yet you repeated and expounded upon his sentiment, so I feel obligated to respond, since it seems so fundamentally divisive to me. Let me try to address it again, this way:

If I have a multitude of reputable translations, lexicons, and dictionaries, then what do you have that I don't? Admittedly, I can't speak, read, or write Hebrew fluently, but I understand what is necessary. ... This is the part that seems very arrogant to me. Please let me explain, and try to put yourself in my shoes:

What if I said:
"If you don't read, write, and speak Greek, then you don't know what the NT says, including the words of Jesus, His apostles, and prophets? Furthermore, you must understand the entire Greek culture, its idioms, its mythology, its history, its wars, and so forth, before you can truly understand the NT, because it was originally written in Greek. This is a fact!"
But, yet, I never did show an authoritative source that backed up my special knowledge that you didn't have. Maybe I said that I know an old, devout, trusted, well-loved, and reputable scholar, who knows everything there is to know about Greek, and he teaches me great things all the time. Maybe I could say you should accept his translations instead of other translations. But, in the end, I was just pitting my small community of accepted scholars against a much larger body of accepted scholars. ...

You see, it seems you are doing the very thing you said you left behind, accepting other people's word for what God says. And, I think that is what you are asking me to do too! I know you said that your mentor used Scripture, but didn't he use his "translation" or his "lexicon" to explain the Scripture? ... In all honesty, this reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness, who can only defend their faith, if you use their translation. Frankly, I think I am doing a better job of "emptying my prejudice" bucket, because I ultimately don't rely on anybody's translation.

Let me summarize what I am hearing: I am hearing some people say, "We are special, because we have special knowledge. When you become one of us, you can have that knowledge too." When they try to demonstrate that special knowledge, they talk about mistranslations of verses or labels that are not essential to sustain their position. ... I am reminded of this one Messianic Jew (I know you are not Messianic), who went on and on in a debate about the meaning of "jot and tittle". There was lots of interesting history, but none of it logically relevant to the disputed interpretation of the text. If special knowledge is not relevant to the crux, then it is trivia, unnecessary, and not special.

At the end of the day, I see two groups of people. Each with their own experts on the translation of the original text. One group has a lot more experts. -- Keep in mind, we are discussing translation, not interpretation. -- In the large group, I see slight variations in translation; however, I have access to a huge source of lexicons to double-check their translations. In fact, their own translations can be used to disprove their personal beliefs, offering a lot of support for their honesty in translation. ... In the other group, I have no way to double check their work. I basically have to take their word for it - not on everything - but, on what they uniquely proclaim of substance, I have to take their word for it!

If I have incorrectly judged, then please demonstrate the uniqueness of your insight on the proof texts I used. If you want to say that some lexicographer was wrong, then show me that he holds a view without substance, contrary to everybody else. Or, show me ancient texts of the same era that used the words under dispute differently than those cited by the lexicographer. In other words, show me the same work that a lexicographer must do to prove his claims. Please don't just claim that you have access to better lexicographers and translators. Prove it! Otherwise, it is just your opinion versus mine, and we are right back with all the other brawling, subjective believers.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Shalom!

Post by email » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:57 pm

m273p15c,

As this is again leading into further discussions of a "cat and mouse" nature, I won't allow my wife to become subject to this debate. We have given you all the resources and links you should need in our previous emails. Now we leave you to further study and revelations.

May peace be with you and yours and may you continue to find truth in the scriptures.

Blessings to all.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

Post Reply