|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 3, 2004 15:17:41 GMT -8
Hey, are there any believers out there whom wish to test the scriptural validity of based faith in Messiah for both Jew, and Gentile? Shalom, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on Jun 22, 2004 11:32:27 GMT -8
Sounds like you are looking for a dispute to provide the opportunity to prove a fact. I have no desire to test but I will testify that I believe in the validity of based faith in the Messiah for the Gentile. I can't speak for a Jew since I am a Gentile.
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 22, 2004 11:55:04 GMT -8
It is not so much that I am looking for a dispute. What I am looking for are Christians that have been taught that has been done away with as the lifestyle of the redeemed. The purpose of this thread is to search the scriptures to see whether this be so. In regards to being Jew, or Gentile...there is only one for both (Num. 15:15-16). Shalom chaver, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on Jun 22, 2004 12:13:13 GMT -8
In my case I was not taught that the was done away with but rather significant portions of it were simply ignored through what one might call conspicious neglect. In my case once the spotlight was put on the annual sabbaths and I read Leviticus 23 for myself it was a no-brainer. At least I had been taught enough intellectual honesty to recognize truth when I was shown, read and focused on it. This probably arose from already having been shown the error of many churches in rejecting the weekly Sabbath for pagan sun worship on the venerable day of the sun. That is why I now feel such an affinity for the Jews even though I am a Gentile. At least the Jews follow the even if they did reject Christ. Of course, any failure to follow truth still leaves ya a foot short on a twenty foot leap across a deep chasm.
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 22, 2004 13:24:50 GMT -8
Thank Abba for His chen v'chesed (grace, and mercy)! And, also that that His chen v'chesed allows us to live a righteous life. Shalom achi, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 20, 2004 23:18:35 GMT -8
The following is my response to Curt whom is contending that Yeshua HaMashiach came to do away with His Father's (insruction, and teaching) given to Moshe to write down. The is still valid as Y’shua has clearly communicated in Matthew 5:16-19. There is no mistake that He referred to all of the found in the five books of Moses. I do not know of one scholar whom disagrees that Y’shua is at least speaking of all of when He says “Law, or Prophets”, and when He speaks of “jot”, and “tittle”. This is unmistakable language for the whole , and not just the ten commandments from which they stem. Sorry, there is no debate on whether or not "Law, or Prophets" refers to the whole of the TeNaKh which is the , Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings). The very fact that you are debating whether "law, and prophets" means -all of - means that you understand that if you did believe that it mean this....you would know that it is to be kept by His disciples. For you believe that it means just the ten commandments, and you believe that this verse supports the keeping of them. The context indeed supports the definition. First of all, you must understand that the context is 1st century Judaism, and not 20th century Gentilism. "Law, or Prophets" undoubtably meant, and still means today to Judaism to be the whole of the TeNaKh. Second, the broad context of all four Gospels shows that no one ever accused Yeshua of doing away with the writings of Moshe. If He was doing this, they would have heard, and they would have a valid accusation against Yeshua HaMashiach. They understood the language of that time, and they did not accuse Him of this. The passages (Matthew 5:21-48) that you believe contradict His clear statement in Matthew 5:16-19 comes from a misunderstanding of those passages, and would actually make Him a hypocrite if what you are saying is true. One can see that He would be contradicting His own statements found in the last scripture passages of my response as He upholds the law given to Moses. No, the phrases are synonamous. He also clarifies this when He says, "in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law". No Rabbi now, or during His time would mistake what He was saying. No, they are two different ways of describing the same word of G'd. This is really quite silly because according to this logic, if everything in has been done away with except the ten commandments...we would have the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and the Davidic covenants also being done away with. But, if you think that they remain then you become a judge of the as you pick, and choose which to maintain, and which to loose. No, G'd does not clearly see a disctinction between the Ten Commandments, and "The Law of Moses". What you have done is simply speculated that there is such a difference as the scripture does not clearly say this. What the scripture does do is use different terms to describe the same thing as it does all through out the Word of G'd. Here is what G'd clearly says about His Law/ ... "As for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you and for the alien that lives with you, a never ending statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before YHVH. There shall be one law and one ordinance both for you and for the alien that lives with you." - Numbers 15:15-16 Clearly He sees His as one. Do you really believe that the above passage refers only to the "Ten Commandments"? Continued...
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 20, 2004 23:19:53 GMT -8
My pleasure. After twelve chapters of reviewing the given to Moshe, G'd says the following... "All the things that I command you, take heed to do them and you shall not add to it, nor take away from it."- Deuteronomy 12:32 You claim that Yeshua did this. If He did, He is neither my Messiah, nor Messiah of anybody in Judaism as He would be in sin, and would indeed be a false prophet. There is more... "To the , and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them!" - Isaiah 8:20 Again, "the , and to the Testimony" is clear language describing the whole of . If Yeshua came do away with this, He would have no light in Him, and would be a false prophet. There are a multitude of other passages that claim that any whom come to do away with any of the is a false prophet, but I will leave you with this final passage... "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams rises among you, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder which he spoke to you occurs, saying, Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams. For YHVH your G'd is testing you, to know if you love YHVH your G'd with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after YHVH your G'd, and you shall fear Him. And you shall keep His commandments, and you shall hear His voice, and you shall serve Him, and you shall cleave to Him. And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall die, because he has spoken apostasy against YHVH your G'd, who is bringing you out of the land of Egypt, and has redeemed you out of the house of slaves, to thrust you out of the way in which YHVH your G'd has commanded you to walk. And you shall put away evil from among you." - Deuteronomy 13:1-5 The above passage states that if any prophet (including Yeshua) came to teach that people should not follow his commands as found in His (The book of Deuteronomy is the context), then such a one should die for his crimes, and would be a false prophet. This teaching that Yeshua came to do away with His Father's commandments given to Moses is one of the number one reasons why Jewish people reject Yeshua today. And again I say, if Yeshua came to do this...He is not Messiah, and the Jews have rightly rejected Him. But of course, this is not the case. You did not demonstrate anything about Yeshua rejecting the Law of Moses except that you do not understand what He was saying within it's Hebraic context, and understanding. The Pharisess did not think that He was doing away with the given to Moshe by G'd, and they where there (you were not). I will leave you with these two passages to clearly show you what Yeshua taught in regards to the given to Moshe by G'd... "Then Yeshua spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have sat down on Moses' seat. Then all things, whatever they tell you to keep, keep and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do." - Matthew 23:1-3 Again, we see in the above passage that far from what you are saying, Yeshua indeed is validating the given to Moses. He does it again. After Yeshua touches on some subjects dealing with the given to Moshe, Yeshua says... "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left aside the weightier matters of the Law: judgment, and mercy, and faith. It was right to do these, and not to have left those aside." - Matthew 23:23 Notice how He even upholds the smaller matters of . I am sorry Curt, but "two law" theology does not hold up under the scriptures. Does anybody else have any thing to point out based on Curt's responses? Shalom in Yeshua HaMashiach, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by The 614th Mitzvot on Jul 21, 2004 10:27:30 GMT -8
Curt, what you must understand is that, of all the writings in the Bible the most vague and, for arguments sake, the least inspired are the writings of Rabbi Sha'ul. First, they are letters, not intended for everyone in the world; secondly, they are letters, not the Almighty, blessed be He, dropping addressed envelopes. Am I saying they are not valid, never, what I am saying is this, that you cannot say that the is not valid because it was inspired, but not written by God. In that case, niether was anything the prophets wrote, why should we believe that. My point is this, there is no difference in the importance of any of the 613 laws of . The only importance was this: that God Almighty made the Ten Commandments as a guide to the goyim; and there were many that studied the up about until the third century, and there were many that left Egypt with them. You will notice that Hashem commands even "the stranger in your lands" to keep these laws. These were the Noachide Laws and the laws that kept away the much of the temptation of breaking all of the other 603.
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 21, 2004 12:53:41 GMT -8
Shalom Chumash614, I agree with much of what you stated. Although, I would contend that the scriptures do not confine the Goyim under the "Noachide Laws". You stated... This is a common misunderstanding that Gentiles are only responsible for the Noachide laws. Here is what the actually says... "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." - Exodus 12:49 "You shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am YHVH your G'd." - Leviticus 24:22 " One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as you are, so shall the stranger be before YHVH. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."- Numbers 15:15-16 Furthermore, if Gentiles are only responsible for the Noachide laws, why do we see the following statement made by the Jerusalem Council found in Acts 15:20-21?... "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."They expected the Goyim whom were coming to salvation to go to the local synagouge, and hear the rest of the being taught, and continue in their sanctification as Yeshua prayed... "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 Yeshua was clearly speaking of His Father's , and in regards to His disciples continually to be sanctified by it. He says that His Father's Word is Truth, and I believe He was referring to Psalms 119:142... "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy /law is the truth." - Psalms 119:142 There are not two seperate set's of law for believers in Messiah regardless if you believe the division is between the ten commandments, or the Noachide laws. There is only one standard of sin for both Jew, and Gentile... "Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law/: for sin is the transgression of the law/." - 1John 3:4 Shalom, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 22, 2004 11:53:27 GMT -8
I just realized that the posts isolated to Yeshua HaMashiach's teachings need to be directed to the area of the forum that deals with the Gospels. Otherwise, if the subject is simply dealing with the validy of based faith in Messiah, and may involve any of the passages found in the Brit HaDashah (New Test.), -this- would be the apropriate area. In other words, Curt, or anybody else that wishes to address Yeshua's words as found in the Gospels...please forward your posts to the apropriate area on the forum. Todah, Reuel
|
|
Curt
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by Curt on Jul 22, 2004 20:05:15 GMT -8
Reuel, I think you are misunderstanding what I am meaning. I'm not contending Jesus came to do away with all of the laws written by the hand of Moses. Some of the laws that pre-date the law of Moses but were also included in the law of Moses. are still valid because of their pre-existence. After all I have written arguments on another web site defending the food laws. I believe in not eating blood or fat. I believe in tithing as a command. I think you would probably place me in a category that you would call " I'm picking and choosing which laws I want to obey." I would see it differently. Any law of Moses which I can see the Bible shows that we do not have to keep, I would not feel compelled to keep it. So having said that lets's continue the debate. Reuel: "The is still valid as Y’shua has clearly communicated in Matthew 5:16-19." Curt: The point I'm making is that it isn't clear in just reading those verses. One has to read the rest of the chapter to understand totally the meaning. The reason you come up with the conclusion the (first five books of Bible) is left untouched is because you don't accept that Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', is contradicted by Jesus command in the very next verse. Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person, But whoever slaps you on your right cheek turn the other to him also". If you would see as I do a slap on your right cheek deserves a return slap under the law of Moses. But Jesus says let the person slap the left cheek also. This Jesus, commanded response is opposite of what the law of Moses allows. This is a reversal of this specific law of Moses. The rest of the chapter verses in Matthew 5 describe what Jesus means. Verses 21-37 describe the Ten Commandments being upheld and magnified and made stricter. The behavior or actions are still sins as they were before but now our minds and thinking can be included as sins. So we can see that at the very least Jesus didn't come to destroy the Ten Commandments. Verses 43-45 show Jesus rejecting the scribe and pharisee logic of hating your enemy and actually upholding a portion of the law of Moses and again which is also the essence of the last six of theTen Commandments. "YOu shall love your neighbor". So, in summary what does the context of the rest of the chapter show: Jesus didn't come to destroy the Ten Commandments, He magnified it, He enhanced it. Jesus reversed a specific law of Moses.(eye for an eye), and He rejected scribe and pharisee reasoning (you shall hate your enemy). Reuel: " I do not know of one scholar whom disagrees that Y’shua is at least speaking of all of when He says “Law, or Prophets”, and when He speaks of “jot”, and “tittle”. Curt: Rather than give great respect to scholars opinions read the rest of the chapter and let the Bible describe what it means. Pretend you don't know what (Law and Prophets; law, or prophets; Law, or Prophets) means and read the rest of the chapter and let what it describes be the Bible meaning. Reuel: " The very fact that you are debating whether "law, and prophets" means -all of - means that you understand that if you did believe that it mean this....you would know that it is to be kept by His disciples" Curt: It means I see a difference in the wording. It means I can see where "Law and Prophets" may mean as you say all of the . It means I can see where "law, or prophets" may or may not be synonomous with "Law and Prophets" It means I don't let scholars tell me what it means, I let the Bible discription describe what it means. After looking at other chapter verses describing what it means I can see Jesus didn't destroy the Ten Commandments and he reversed one of the laws of Moses (eye for an eye), and He rejected scribe and pharisee reasoning (you should hate your enemy). Reuel: "First of all, you must understand that the context is 1st century Judaism, and not 20th century Gentilism. "Law, or Prophets" undoubtably meant, and still means today to Judaism to be the whole of the TeNaKh" Curt: The context I'm speaking of is Matthew 5:21-44. This is the context which describes what law, or prophets mean. It describes a keeping and enhancement of the Ten Commandments, it describes a reversal of (eye for an eye), which is a specific law of Moses, and a rejection of scribe and pharisee logic and reasoning (You shall hate your enemy). Reuel: "Second, the broad context of all four Gospels shows that no one ever accused Yeshua of doing away with the writings of Moshe" Curt: That may be true of everyone else who wrote the gospels, I haven't checked it out. But Matthew is one of the Gospels and Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 5:38-39 He reversed the specific law of Moses dealing with "an eye for an eye". However, another writer states in Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also A CHANGE IN THE LAW." Reuel: "The passages (Matthew 5:21-48) that you believe contradict His clear statement in Matthew 5:16-19 comes from a misunderstanding of those passages, and would actually make Him a hypocrite if what you are saying is true" Curt: Matthew 5:39-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Under the law of Moses slapping a person's right cheek mandates slapping the other person's right cheek. Under Jesus's command receiving a slap on the right cheek means not returning the slap and offering up your other cheek as well to be slapped. The idea of slapping a person and not slapping a person are not the same thing. Theyr'e opposites. I don't see any misunderstanding. I'm not sure which verses you mean when you say "found in the last scripture passages of my response" as far as contradictions and Jesus being a hypocrite. When you show me I'll comment. Reuel: ", the phrases are synonamous. He also clarifies this when He says, "in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law". No Rabbi now, or during His time would mistake what He was saying" Curt:("The Law and the Prophets" and "the law, or the prophets") I think one is a title ("The Law and the Prophets") and the other is a phrase ("the law, or the prophets). Note the capital letters on the one and the abscence in the other. Note also the abscence of the comma in the first and the presence in the second. I'm not making my conclusions based on Capital Letters and the positioning of commas. I'm taking what is written from the verse ("the law, or the prophets") and letting the verses from Matthew 5:21-44 describe what it means. The phrase " in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the law" refers to the law described in Matthew 5:21-44. By the way you Capitalize "Law" in this response but the Bible has "law" not capitalized. Although learned men, Rabbi's still don't have it over the Bible intrepreting itself. Reuel: "No, they are two different ways of describing the same word of G'd." Curt: I was speaking of "the law written by God vs. the law written by Moses. I again would have to disagree. Both laws are inspired of God, both are found in the . It is more than different ways of describing the same word of God. The Ten Commandment subject matter is different than that of the law written by Moses. You can again read the differences in the law written by God and the law written by Moses in my June 21st. writing. The differences in writing by God and writing by man shows the importance and permanence of God's finger writing on stone compared to a man's writing on paper in a book. God vs. man which is more important? Which is more permanent stone or paper. God instructed Moses to place the Ten Commandments inside the ark and the law of Moses on the side of the ark. Could it be God felt the Ten Commandment Law was more important because it was place in a most Holy place while the lesser was placed on the outside? Could there be a reason why God called the Ten Commandment Law the Royal law and the perfect law? The Ten Commandments is God's character. God's character does not change. Could that be one reason why the Ten Commandment Law does not change. Reuel: " This is really quite silly because according to this logic, if everything in has been done away with except the ten commandments...we would have the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and the Davidic covenants also being done away with" Curt: I didn't say everything in the has been done away with except the Ten Commandments. Reuel: "..we would have the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and the Davidic covenants also being done away with. But, if you think that they remain then you become a judge of the as you pick, and choose which to maintain, and which to loose" Curt: I'm not picking and choosing. I'm letting Jesus and the Bible pick and choose. Reuel: "No, G'd does not clearly see a disctinction between the Ten Commandments, and "The Law of Moses". What you have done is simply speculated that there is such a difference as the scripture does not clearly say this." Curt: Read my June 21st response to see that God does differentiate and does see a difference. God's fingerwriting vs. Moses's handwriting; on stone vs. in a book; inside the ark vs. on the outside of the ark; a royal, perfect law vs. the curse of the law.
|
|
Curt
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by Curt on Jul 22, 2004 20:12:37 GMT -8
Shalom Reuel' Reuel: "As for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you and for the alien that lives with you, a never ending statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before YHVH. There shall be one law and one ordinance both for you and for the alien that lives with you." Curt: What this is saying is that the same law applies to both you and the alien. The law their speaking of is the law of Moses. As the reference you gave of Number's 15:15-16 shows this is a chapter about the laws of grain and drink offerings which is of the law of Moses. You underline "a never ending statute". The word used in my Bible is "forever". So here we go again "forever" doesn't always mean on and on into infinity. Forever, here has an ending. It ends at the cross. Exodus 21:6 "He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him "FOREVER" We know forever is not on and on into infinity but only till the man dies. The same is true of this statute of the law of Moses. It goes on until it ends. It ended when Christ was nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:14 " having wiped out the HANDWRITING of requirements that was AGAINST US, which was contrary to us. And He has nailed it to the cross. Handwriting of requirements is speaking of the law of Moses. Now we see why God thought it was important enough to distinguish between the finger-writing of God and the HANDWRITING OF MOSES because he wanted us to know which law was being nailed to the cross. The law that was a witness AGAINST us was the law of Moses. Now we see why God thought it important enough to distinguish which law was AGAINST us so we would know which law was nailed to the cross.. That is why God chose to distinguish between the two laws when He put the law of Moses AGAINST or on the side of the ark. God chose to distinguish the law of Moses by it being writtten in a BOOK. That's the reason He distinguished book from stone so we would know which law He was talking about that would be nailed to the cross. Deuteronomy 31:26 "Take this BOOK of the LAW, and put it BESIDE THE ARK OF the LORD your God, that it may be there "AS A WITNESS AGAINST you; Reuel: ""All the things that I command you, take heed to do them and you shall not add to it, nor take away from it." - Deuteronomy 12:32 Curt: They weren't allowed to add or take away but God is. Reuel: " If He did, He is neither my Messiah, nor Messiah of anybody in Judaism as He would be in sin, and would indeed be a false prophet. There is more..." Curt: I know Jews who believe the same as I do. God is all-powerfull and He can do anything He wants. I won't set conditions on Him. Reuel: ""To the , and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them!" - Isaiah 8:20 Curt: I imagine at this time in the Old Testament era that the text was speaking of the law written by God and the law writtten by Moses both. This was before the time that Jesus was crucified. Reuel: " If Yeshua came do away with this, He would have no light in Him, and would be a false prophet." Curt: Men have no light in them when they don't speak to the law and the testimony. Jesus wasn't just a man, not just a prophet but God also. He came to fulfill the prophecies, He fulfilled some of the law that is why it ended. God can change or do away with laws if He so chooses. Jesus was a man, a prophet but also God. Reuel: "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams rises among you, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder which he spoke to you occurs, saying, Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams. For YHVH your G'd is testing you, to know if you love YHVH your G'd with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after YHVH your G'd, and you shall fear Him. And you shall keep His commandments, and you shall hear His voice, and you shall serve Him, and you shall cleave to Him. And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall die, because he has spoken apostasy against YHVH your G'd, who is bringing you out of the land of Egypt, and has redeemed you out of the house of slaves, to thrust you out of the way in which YHVH your G'd has commanded you to walk. And you shall put away evil from among you." - Deuteronomy 13:1-5 Curt: Everyone was to keep both the law written by God and the law written by Moses during that time period. Jesus kept both laws also. Jesus fulfilled that law of Moses and it is God inspired Word which tells us that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross. Jesus wasn't just man He was God also and He can change the law if He wants. Reuel: " This teaching that Yeshua came to do away with His Father's commandments given to Moses is one of the number one reasons why Jewish people reject Yeshua today." Curt: I know that is true for the vast majority of the Jews but not true of all. Some who were Jews or are by heritage have come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that He has done away with the law of Moses. Reuel: "You did not demonstrate anything about Yeshua rejecting the Law of Moses except that you do not understand what He was saying within it's Hebraic context, and understanding. " Curt: I guess we'll have to let God judge who understands or does not understand. Reuel: "The Pharisess did not think that He was doing away with the given to Moshe by G'd, and they where there (you were not)." Curt: I wasn't there and am not sure what the Pharisees thought about Jesus doing away with the law of Moses. It's not the Pharisees I put my trust in, it's the Word of God. Reuel: "Then Yeshua spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have sat down on Moses' seat. Then all things, whatever they tell you to keep, keep and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do." - Matthew 23:1-3 Curt: True, the crowd and His disciples should do as the scribes and pharisees tell them. Of course, this was before Jesus's crucifixion. We are also commanded to obey those in authority over us unless they command us to go against God. Reuel: "Yeshua indeed is validating the given to Moses." Curt: Indeed He did validate the here but after His crucifixion we have other scripture that discusses the validity of the law of Moses. Reuel: " Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left aside the weightier matters of the Law: judgment, and mercy, and faith. It was right to do these, and not to have left those aside." - Matthew 23:23 Notice how He even upholds the smaller matters of " Curt: The paying of tithes pre-dated the law of Moses, so did the Ten Commandments, so did the eating of clean and unclean meat and so did the eating of fruit and vegetables. Because it pre-dated the law of Moses it is not effected by changing of the law of Moses. Reuel: " I am sorry Curt, but "two law" theology does not hold up under the scriptures" Curt: I still feel it does. This information is good for all. I do understand your unwillingness to give up the law of Moses. It's not that easy to argue against someone who wants to keep the law of Moses because he feels it is still part of God's law. It's much easier to argue against someone who doesn't want to keep God's Ten Commandments, Tithing, or Food laws because I know their motive is rebellion. You always bring up good points. I hope everyone is learning. I know I am.
|
|
Curt
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by Curt on Jul 22, 2004 20:39:29 GMT -8
Hi Chumas 614 Thankyou for your comments. They are appreciated. You stated: " what I am saying is this, that you cannot say that the is not valid because it was inspired, but not written by God. In that case, niether was anything the prophets wrote, why should we believe that." Curt: I'm not saying that. I'm saying it was valid up until Jesus's crucifixion. I'm saying scripture says it was ended at that time. I'm saying it was God's choice to end it. Chumash 614 : "My point is this, there is no difference in the importance of any of the 613 laws of ." Curt: I do believe if we break any of the Ten Commandments it is sin. I do wonder though if some of the Ten Commandments are more important than others. I wonder if murder is more important than lying. It is to me. But I'm not sure how God feels about that. The following verse makes me wonder. Matthew 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the "LEAST" of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven........" I wonder if there is a least commandment, if there is a more important commandment. Curt
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 23, 2004 8:01:53 GMT -8
Shalom Curt My goodness...that is a lot to respond to. I will address what you view as your strongest points. Also, at a later time, I will start new threads for some of the scriptures that you have quoted that are commonly misinterpreted by most of Christianity so that we will have threads dedicated to those passages. Where shall we start?... You stated... This is why understanding the scriptures in it's original Hebraic context is so critical. One cannot hope to understand the scriptures using common 20th century Gentile understanding. Does Matthew 5:39 really contradict the /Law of G'd given to Moses?? Again, we must view the context of this passage from Yeshua's opening statements made in Matthew 5:16-19, from the broad context of 1st century Judaism, it's expectations of what Messiah would come, and do. The immediate context also needs to be considered. The immediate context demonstrates that no one was recorded as to percieve that Messiah was doing away with any part of the given to Moses (as we see was recorded when The Pharisees thought that Yeshua HaMashiach was breaking the Sabbath (which both you, and I know is false). If we take Yeshua at His word in Matthew 5:16-19, and understand the clear language found therein as represented in 1st century Judaism of His time means that He came to rightly interpret , and not destroy it (just as was expected of Messiah)...we can see from this context that this was what He was doing in the following passages in which you are pointing out. Let's take a closer look... "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."- Matthew 5:38-39 First of all, when the phrase "You have heard that it has been said" is used by Yeshua, He is speaking of what the Rabbis were teaching during His time. Notice how Yeshua did not say, "it is written" as He does when He is actually speaking of His Father's Word (Mat.4:4, Mat.4:7,Mat.4:10, Mat.11:10, Mat.21:13. Mat. 26:31 etc.). This is -clearly- not what Yeshua is doing in these passages that you speak of. So, how is Yeshua correctly interpreting 5:38-39? During the time, the phrase "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was used to justify personal vengeance much like it is used this way today by some in Judaism, and in Christianity. But, what need's to be understood is that all of G-d's commandments are actually meant to be merciful....and so is this one. The purpose of the commandment was actually to limit retaliation. If someone maimed another, took an eye, or limb, (or whatever)...many times vengeance would be taken on the person whom committed the act. But, instead of simply meeting the punishment with equal consequence, the individual, their family, or friends would take matters into their own hands. They would do something much worse to the person whom afflicted the damage such as killing them, or something much more harsh than what was actually afflicted upon the intitial victim. So, what was Yeshua The Messiah's response to this false teaching??... "But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."He was not teaching the doing away of the commandment, but was magnifiying the actual purpose of the commandment in regards to personal vengeance. You speak of the ten commandments being the "Royal Law". Please show me where G'd says that the ten commandments are royal, and the others that were also given to Moshe are not royal. Your interpretation of what was nailed to the cross is a common misunderstanding of the text, and I will address it in the following post. Shalom achi, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jul 23, 2004 9:50:49 GMT -8
Curt stated...
Let us take a look at the passage in question found in Colossians 2:13-14...
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"
Ariel Berkowitz handles this passage well...
[/i] stood for the phrase, “I cross out”.
In short, what Sha’ul (Paul) appears to be saying here is that the certificate of debts consisting of decrees against us that was being cancelled was all the debt of sin that we owed to our Father. This is what was being nailed to the cross. It was, in a sense being cancelled with a big X[/i] on it, as other debts were cancelled in the ancient Greek world.[/quote]
Curt Stated...
No, G'd said that we are not even to think this until the covenant with the day, and night is broken (Jeremiah 33:20), or until heaven, and Earth passaway (Matthew 5:16-19). This would make Him a liar, and a covenant breaker. If this was the case we could not trust our current covenant with Him.
In the name of Yeshua The Messiah,
Reuel
|
|