Matt. 05 - 07

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Is there any place in the Gospels that Yeshua taught the doing away of His Father's ?? Much of Christianity seems to think so...

Shalom,

Reuel

[alanderos]

There is no where in the Holy Scriptures where it says that Yeshua came to do away wth our HaShem given . In Mathew 5:17 when it says came to fulfill, Yeshua means he came to give it a more complete or correct meaning than the pharisees of those times were giving the . He did not mean to do away with it for we still have heaven and earth. The Ephraims of our day need to understand who they really are physical sons of Jacob, and that Yeshua never did come to exchange the Assembly of G-d or Israel for the church.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Alanderos,

Welcome to Ha Ahava Elohim Discussion Boards!

You stated....

There is no where in the Holy Scriptures where it says that Yeshua came to do away wth our HaShem given . In Mathew 5:17 when it says came to fulfill, Yeshua means he came to give it a more complete or correct meaning than the pharisees of those times were giving the . He did not mean to do away with it for we still have heaven and earth.

Amen my brother

The Ephraims of our day need to understand who they really are physical sons of Jacob, and that Yeshua never did come to exchange the Assembly of G-d or Israel for the church.

Correct, they do not replace them...they are joined to them. Those whom join themselves to the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and and Jacob are absorbed into Israel, and inherit all their promises...

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without G-d in the world: But now in Messiah Yeshua ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Messiah." Ephesians 2:11-13

The stranger that joins himself to YHVH becomes part of Israel.

Shalom aleichem,

Reuel

[DoveMinistriesUK]

A much more interesting question, surely, is this:

Is the latter covenant Scripture in the sense that the Law is Scripture, or is it a series of halachic decisions by Rabbi Yeshua, Rabbi Sh'aul and others based on the Law?

If it is Scripture, why does it contains words that Sh'aul says quite specifically are HIS and NOT Yeshua's? Can a mere man's words be counted as Scripture?

[kwbush]

Can a mere man's words be counted as Scripture?

I'd guess if the "mere" man is Rav Sh'aul a writer inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh, chosen of G-d, who
produced 13, most would argue 14 of the 27 books of the Brit Hadashah... oh yeh... a "mere" man's words could be counted as Scripture...

ps.
I mean no disrespect... if my reply is offensive in any way I apologize... my intent is only to present an opinion.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I mean no disrespect... if my reply is offensive in any way I apologize... my intent is only to present an opinion.

Keith,

I think you have a good point. Rav Sha'ul just like any other prophet in the TeNaKh was a tool used of G-d. All of the men whom Adonai used to write the scriptures where "mere" men. Yet, G-d uses the lowly things of the world to show forth His glory...

"But G-d hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and G-d hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath G-d chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."
- 1Corinthians 1:27-29

DoveMinistriesUK,

Do you reject the writings of Rav Sha'ul? Perhaps we need to start another thread on this subject in the proper category. I would be open to discussing this with you if you like.

Shalom brothers,

Reuel

[DoveMinistriesUK]

Shalom aleichem!

I'm afraid you miss the points I made.

The first point is to ask whether the group of books called 'the new testament' are Scripture on the SAME BASIS as the Law or are they halachic decisions which rest on the Law? If they are the former then their words are clearly an integral part of Scripture - if they are the latter then they may be a record decisions made by Sh'aul and Yeshua as any other Rabbi might make decisions on the application of the Law, but might not be regarded as Scripture ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE LAW.

I am NOT saying that G_d cannot use a man to write his words - I fully accept that he does that - but that is NOT the point I am making!

The second point is that, if the answer to the above question is that all in the new testament is Scripture, what about the parts where Sh'aul says that the words written are 'not the Lord's but mine'. Here he is categorically stating that HE has made an halachic decision but NOT of G_d's word. If that is the case how much more, if any, of the new testament is to be seen as pure Scripture and which part/parts might not be.

Simple questions - but oh boy the discussion will get really DEEP! Lets remember in our discussion what was said earlier, though - we must love and respect each other as we work through this difficult point.

Bless you all.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom DoveMinistriesUK,

You do have some valid points. In regards to Sha'ul and some of the statements he makes that you have pointed out...I believe they are Spirit lead instructions. But, you are right in regards to these writings not being on the same level as the TeNaKh, as the TeNaKh is the foundation for the Brit HaDashah, and not the other way around. Also in regards to some of the comments made in Sha'ul's writings, don't we see similiar things in the TeNaKh? This was the very reason that the sect of the Sadducees rejected any writings other than (first five books of Moshe). Clearly Yeshua didn't agree with their reasoning.

Don't worry brother, there is no bitter root here. I appreciate your honesty in looking at the scritpures, and testing these things. But, I would say that Sha'uls writings are in complete harmony with , and thus are authoritative...especially because Yeshua commissioned Sha'ul himself, and Yeshua is the living .

Yours in Him,

Reuel

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

If any wish to discuss rav Sha'ul any further, let us do it in the category designated for this.

Shalom,

Reuel

[DoveMinistriesUK]

Shalom aleichem!

O you've caught me out! I did't think, in the Tanach, that it says anything about anyone admitting that THEY were making a decision, and not the Lord? Have I missed something?

I think this discussion is in the right place because I am asking whether Yeshua's understanding of his Father's law in the new testament is as valid as the Tanach. If we agree tat it is (and we already have dissent on that issue) then the answer to your question is 'No' he did not come to do away with the Law because all he said and did was consistent in his application of the Law as his Father declared it to be.

However, the new testament clearly contains words that Sh'aul spoke off his own back - and they appear to be totally inconsistent with Yeshua's words, with his desire not to change the Law and his declared intention of fulfilling it. Does this mean, then, that the new testament has errors in it? If so can we trust the words written that show that Yeshua did uphold the Law, or was Sh'aul right, as follows:

Sh'aul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 7:12 that his words and the teaching he then gives were his OWN - not G_d's. We see his own guidance/ruling on whether or not divorce is allowed. Now, is he speaking out against Yeshua's teaching in Mattityahu (and other places), where it is implied that the exact opposite is right? Who is right and who is wrong here? or should we simply disregard Sh'aul's words? If we agree to disregard them, how many other words did he say, or anyone else for that matter, that are to be disregarded but where he/the scribe forgot to put in the caveat?

If, on the other hand, the words are part of Scripture - a part of G_d's word to us - then it flies in the face of what the Tanach says, and what Jesus was very clear about. The Bible must, therefore, be divided against itself. We can't sit on fence on this issue, can we?

This is why I mentioned about having a schmooze in love - it needs to be talked about but it is a subject that might just rattle some people as it deals with the sanctity of the Word of G_d and the integrity of the written Word given us by him.

PS Don't lose any sleep over it - it is a good question to get the ol' grey matter to work!

Namron

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Let us continue the discussion of Rav Sha'ul in the proper category. Click on this link:
theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&n=1&thread=169&start=0

[Kallah]

Shalom, mishpochah! My post on this thread is commenting on the pesukim(verses) of Mattityahu {Matthew 5:17-19} and the posts made by achim Joshua(Yoahshoah), and Reuel on the Romans 6:14 thread.

achi Joshua wrote:
[b]"Commenting on what was said earlier. I don't think Yohshuah HaMoshiach was throing out those laws, because don't forget what he said about the "yod" , but rather he was saying to go beyond that law. These Laws were all divinely inspired.....One must understand that Talmud always either made laws stricter or easier and Yohshuah HaMoshiach was saying to make this one stricter, while many of the Ph'rushim were encouraging making the law more lenient as though a man could divorce his wife for even burning his dinner."  [/b]
achi Reuel wrote:
[b]Amen. You have given the correct interpretation within it's Hebraic context. This is exactly what Yeshua was communicating. Each Rabbi is to interpret The Torah for his talmidim (disciples), and this is what Yeshua has done for us in the Brit Hadasha (new test.). The Rabbi's interpretation can either serve to destroy it, our to complete it (bring it to it's fullest). This is what Yeshua HaMashiach came to do. [/b]

Reading the verse reference from both Ladino(Judeo-Spanish) and modern Spanish, the English verb "but" would translate from Ladino, ma; from modern Spanish mas, into English either as, 'but', 'why', 'more', 'more so', which would bring interpretation of the Mattityahu 5:17-19 pesukim closer to the Jewish mindset Yeshua was speaking in (as achim Joshua and Reuel have inferred in their postings).

I'd like to mention, that during period of first Temple, when a Rabbino would be giving instruction and/or giving an interpretation of , if the explanation given was agreed to be the correct interpretation, the talmidim would say to the Rabbino that he had "fulfilled" . If the interpretation was incorrect, then it would be expressed that the Rabbino had "destroyed" . There were many different Jewish sects at that time. Each had their own yeshivas,Rabbinos, and with that came many different interpretations of . From the different explanations of , there arose a common adage among Jewish scholars and talmidim; that when the true Moshiach came, He would give the correct interpretation. He would "fulfill" . In essence this is what Yeshua was expressing. He was Moshiach, and He had come {was there among them}, and had given the correct interpretation of (TaNaKh).

I've shared from my past studies, from teachings by Messianic (Sephardi) Rabbi Dan ben Avraham. I apologize I don't have any weblinks to supply for reference. However, I am sure you would not have any problems acquiring similar references, doing a personal web search.

Continued blessings, chaverim.

b'ahavah Yeshua, Kallah

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Amein Kallah

Here is a passage from the recommended book " Rediscovered" by Ariel Berkowitz....

Yeshua's Stamp of Approval

[/u]

The is unique because it is a covenant, a national constitution, and a marriage agreement. But it is also unique because of the way Yeshua related to it. Yeshua has not received the credit He deserves from many circles today as the greatest teacher who ever lived. However, we once studied with a rabbi who gave Him that accolade. With Yeshua there was an underlying assumption about throughout His teachings. The assumption is that He clearly perceived that God's covenant people are to have a living, meaningful, and ongoing relationship to . In other words, in Yeshua's thinking, one of the purposes of is to describe the lifestyle of the redeemed community (This will be examined in more detail later)

Matthew 5:17-20 teaches this very clearly. In this passage, Yeshua forthrightly states that He did not come to do away with the . In addition, He also rebukes anyone else for teaching that it should be done away with. He said,

"Whosoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

To back up His statement, He then embarks upon a series of teachings in Matthew 5-7 where He quotes how some of the teachers of His day understood various passages in the . He then gives His own interpretation. The telltale sign of this is the repeated use of the formula, "You have heard that the ancients were told (erroneous teaching of the rabbis), but I say unto you (correct interpretation of given by Yeshua)." He was doing this to practice what He taught in Matthew 5:17 when He said, " Do not think that I came to abolish the or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to make the meaning full." Yeshua was speaking the common parlance of the rabbis of His day According to scholars David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr.,

" Destroy" [abolish] and "fulfill" are technical terms of rabbinic augmentation. When a rabbi felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, "You are destroying the law!"...What was " destroying the law" for one rabbi, was "fulfilling the law" (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another.4

When a proper interpretation of a passage was given, the rabbis said that it was "fulfilled," or interpreted properly. Conversely, when an erroneous interpretation was given, it was said that a teacher "abolished" or misinterpreted the passage.
If, as some say, the believer is to have no meaningful relationship to in this day and age, then this passage in Matthew would have been a most appropriate place for Yeshua to teach it. Clearly, He did not.
There is another important passage from the gospels which gives Yeshua's stamp of approval for the . In Luke 24, following His resurrection, Yeshua revealed Himself to two of His followers while walking with them on the road to Emmaus.

" Beginning with Moshe and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

Again, in verse 44, He says something similar:

"These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the of Moshe and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Could it be that with the use of the word "fulfilled" He was saying that in order for (and the rest of the Tanakh) to be interpreted properly, one must see how they speak about Himself?
Yeshua was saying, emphatically, that one of the major purposes for the was to understand it in such a way as to see Him in all of its teachings. This, by the way, establishes a critically important hermeneutical principle for properly interpreting the . We can learn how to follow any given teaching once we learn how it reveals the Messiah.
Furthermore, Yeshua's life was one of perfectly living out the written . His teaching perfectly clarified and explained the . He was so related to the that some of His earliest followers referred to Him as haTorah-"The "!5[/quote]

[Kallah]

B"H
Toda, achi Reuel for assistance in posting a reference.
Much appreciated.

b'ahavah Yeshua, Kallah

[The 614th Mitzvot]

Keep in mind one thing that Moshe said. "This is for you, your children, and your children's children, unto the ten thousandth generation." The ten thousandth generation has not come yet and I don't think something this obvious would be, nor should be, overlooked by HaShem or anyone.