lbj
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lbj on Jan 24, 2005 20:34:25 GMT -8
Reuel, You dispute my reference to law in Romans two as referring to "universal man's" innate sense of right vs. wrong by implying that the fact that "universal man" has done what was right in his own eyes militates against this innate "law." If this is so, how will God then judge gentiles who were never given the Law at Sinai and never had knowledge of it? The fact that God can hold the pygmy in Australia accountable for murder is because the pygmy knows in his conscience that it was wrong to take another's life. You see, just because "universal man" has done what was right in his own eyes does not overturn the fact that he did those things against his own conscience. Universal man knows what is right, but does the wrong thing nonetheless, and this is his culpability before God. If man did not know, by nature, what was right and what was wrong, he would be as innocent as the earthworm. :-) If your contention is right that God's law exists only in the law given at Sinai, how, in your opinion, will God judge those who died never having been given the Law at Sinai or had any knowledge of it? To comment further on the verse14 in Romans 2.... "...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," It is your contention that the only law in view here is the law given at Sinai. I grant you that contention for the purposes of argumentation. Now, you state that the reference to "law to themselves" is a reference to gentiles who receive the New Covenant as per Jeremiah "I will write my laws on their hearts..." And you state that the law in Romans 2 here is the from Sinai and also the law given in the New Covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah is also the given at Sinai. If this is so, then gentiles who receive the "law written on their hearts" cannot be said, as Paul says, to be "without the law." But, the passage in Romans says pointedly, "Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law..." So, first question is why would Paul refer to these "New Covenant" gentiles as those "who do not have the law" when you have stated in your post that the law written on their hearts is none other than the Law given at Sinai? Second question would be that if they don't have the law given at Sinai, how can they then be said to do things in the law? You mention Matthew 5:17, and I would like to comment on that passage as well, but will wait for your further responses on this Romans passage. Shalom, Lbj
|
|
lbj
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lbj on Jan 24, 2005 23:28:07 GMT -8
Reuel, I have one more question for you based on the Romans 2 passage, which you can group with the other two questions in your reply to me.... You say that sin is a violation of God's law which can only be the of Sinai. But, in Romans 2 Paul states "For all who have sinned without the Law..." In this portion of the verse, Paul is speaking someone who is "without the Law" meaning a person who had no access to the law given at Sinai. It must mean this, based on your belief that law in this passage must refer only to the law given at Sinai. You also maintain, as I said, that sin can only be defined with reference to violation of the law given at Sinai. If this is so, how then can Paul speak of those "who have sinned without the Law?" This person Paul speaks of has "sinned" yet NOT with reference to the law given at Sinai, inasmuch as this person was "without" this law. Thanks, Lbj
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jan 25, 2005 0:34:32 GMT -8
Many of the heathen nations realized this obvious truth. This does not mean that they had the Spirit or the written upon their heart. The very fact that in Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33 states that the would be written on His people's heart communicates that they did not have it written on their hearts prior to this. It was not something that these people started with. The truth is that just like the prophets of old, those whom seek YHVH with their whole heart, mind, and soul can and will become aware of His eternal which is an expression of His very character... "And you shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." - Jeremiah 29:13 The above must be read in context with Jeremiah 31:33. There is nothing universal or natural about this as this goes against the nature of fallen man (Romans 8:5-8). The passage in Ezekiel 36:26 applies to everyone and clearly speaks of the (First five books of Moshe) as the same standard of sin applies to everyone (Numbers 15:15-16). Although, those whom have more knowledge will be held more accountable (Luke 12:48). But, this does not change the standard. Avraham was a good example of a heathen coming to know YHVH. As a result, he came to know His as well. We see this was the reason YHVH selected Avraham to be the father of our faith... "...because Avraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my mitzvot, my statutes, and my laws."- Genesis 26:5 There is a clear connection between the above passage and Ezekiel 36:26-27. How did Noah know what animals were kosher? The list goes on. The fact is, those whom truly seek Him also discover His . But, this will be a relatively short list of people as attested by Messiah Himself... To answer your question, Messiah said that the road is narrow and few whom find it, and the road wide for the path of destruction... "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the road is broad that leads to perdition, and many are the ones who go through it. "For the gate is small, and the road is narrow that leads to life, and few are the ones who find it."- Matthew 7:13-14 In other words, G'd is a just judge regardless if one percieves it, or not. Very few will go down the road of life as described by Messiah. And in fact, it is those whom practice anomia/lawlessness (Luke 13:27) which will be cast away from Messiah. It is quite simple. This speaks of those Goyim that were not born in a observant househould and to whom was not directly intrusted the oracles of G'd (Romans 3:2). They would have to learn to be sanctified by it as referenced in Acts 15:20-21 and as Yeshua stated in John 17:17. Sha'ul also describes their previous state and goes on to say that as they are filled with the Holy Spirit that they actually start practicing the things contained in . This also answers your second question. The truth is that these Gentiles were being absorbed into Israel and there is only one for both the goyim and the native born Israelite... "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 /law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." - Numbers 15:16 Was Sha'ul teaching against these clear scriptures?? I think not... "Do we then render inoperative the through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the ."- Romans 3:31 Check it out, the context is (first five books). It is clear that Law Prophets Jot & Tittle are clear language for -all- of . History clearly supports this. Please save it for a thread dedicated to this passage. Again, the goyim where not born and raised in the instruction of , this is what Rav Sha'ul speaks of. As we will see, the clear definition of sin is breaking . The passage that you outline clearly indicates that regardless of one's ignorance...sin is sin. It does not matter if you had the benefit of being raised in a observant home. At any rate, let us keep focused on the definition of sin as this thread is getting a little off track. We can clearly see the definition of sin from the following three passages... "Therefore by the deeds of the Law/ there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the Law/ is the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20 "What shall we say then? Is the Law/ sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Law/: for I had not known lust, except the law/ had said, Thou shalt not covet." - Romans 7:7 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law/: for sin is the transgression of the Law/."- 1John 3:4 These passages are undisputable as they clearly speak of . There are three clear witnesses to the defintion of sin for all. What one thinks is fair does not matter... "Yet you say, The way of the Lord is not fair. Hear now, O house of Israel. Is My way not fair? Are your ways not unfair?"- Ezekiel 18:25 So there we have it, three clear witnesses to whom applies to, and three clear witnesses to the definition of sin. Please stay focused on these passages as we can address all the other writings of the greatly misunderstood Rav Sha'ul (2Peter 3:15-16) after this subject is sufficiently covered. Shalom, Reuel
|
|
lbj
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lbj on Jan 25, 2005 2:33:03 GMT -8
Reuel, Quote: "Many of the heathen nations realized this obvious truth. This does not mean that they had the Spirit or the written upon their heart." You are confusing two different realities which Paul speaks of. Bear with me as I try to clarify and untangle this. The work of the Holy Spirit in "writing the law" on the human heart, and the work of one's own natural conscience bearing witness to what is right and what is wrong (which is certainly the law of the conscience's Creator) are two different realities. The former reality is what is mentioned in the prophecies in Ezekiel and Jeremiah regarding the New Covenant. The latter reality is what Paul is trying to get at in Romans chapter 2. I understand that men are fallible, however I mention this so that those following this thread don't think that I am merely grasping at straws and pulling this out of my hat. If you consult any standard bible commentary, this is the usual interpretation. I have NEVER found any commentator to even suggest that Paul in Romans chapter two was describing a regenerated gentile who has undergone the internal work of the Holy Spirit in "writing the law on their heart." Rather, unanimous opinion is that Paul is describing gentiles in their natural state (he even uses the phrase "BY NATURE"!!!!, who though they were not in possession of the Law of Sinai, still bore witness to God's Law for mankind by doing BY NATURE many of the things contained in the Law. That one two-word phrase, in my opinion, is quite decisive. There is nothing in this passage to verify your statement that "Sha'ul also describes their previous state and goes on to say that as they are filled with the Holy Spirit that they actually start practicing the things contained in ." It appears to me that you have inserted this meaning. Nothing in chapter two deals with the Holy Spirit. Rather, Paul speaks about the obvious reality that many "heathen" actually practice "by nature" many of the things written in the Law of Sinai...for example, most "heathen" do not murder or rape in the actual literal sense. In 1 Corinthians, Paul makes reference to someone in the church committing a type of incest that "is not found even among gentiles.... 1 Cor. 5:1 "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! " So, Paul recognizes that even "heathen" sometimes have better practical knowledge of the law then do those within the believing community! You have a view of God, with regards to His right to judge the gentiles, that is highly problematic. It appears that you are insinuating the following scenerio: God has a law for His creatures. He creates His creatures. These creatures have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong unless they receive the law at Sinai. Only a few ever received the law at Sinai. So, only these few had a chance to even do good. The rest were left in the dark as to what is right and what is wrong. Yet God will judge all of these creatures. Reuel, this is so harsh I can't accept it. Literally, this is no different than God condemning a physically blind man for failing to know exactly and precisely what a flower looks like, despite the fact that he has been blind from birth and never seen one. This sounds more like Allah! The Scriptures always teach that men sin because they knowingly chose what was not right. They sinned against conscience. Therefore all men are accountable because all men know right from wrong. Are you denying this? Here is one clear passage from Paul that hits precisely at this point.... Romans 5:13 "and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses" Thank goodness that Paul wrote "but sin is not imputed when there is no law." This proves that there was a "law" even before Moses gave the Law at Sinai - and that law was illustrated 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, 15who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" Because of your monolithic view of the meaning of "law" /Nomos, you repeat the rabbinical fancy that Abraham had and followed the law of Moses. This is clearly and obviously a rabbinical overlay, with no support in the text of Scripture, other than your mere assertion that when it is written that Abraham "kept my charge, my mitzvot, my statutes, and my laws" it MUST and HAS to mean the "mitzvot, statutes and laws" that came down from Sinai. However, God issued many "mitzvot, statutes and laws" prior to Sinai and to a wide range of people, not just Abraham. He even commanded light "to be!" The Law of God did not begin at Sinai. God's Law eternally resides in His own nature, and the 'matan ' at Sinai was a specific historically relative (relative to a particular people and place) manifestation of that eternal law. The rabbis said many good things, but this idea was not one of them. Let me now answer to the scriptures you cite... "Do we then render inoperative the through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the ." - Romans 3:3 Paul has labored on and on about certain old covenant laws like circumcision no longer being "operative." This statement in Romans 3:3 was not literally saying "On the contrary, we are the most strict Observent Messianics around - so, you must be circumcised, be particular in you diet, and begin to celebrate feasts and new moons!" Rather, he was saying that by means of the Holy Spirit, New Covenant believers actually achieve the core of the old law, which is LOVE, even though they don't achieve it by the old familar pathways like circumcision and the like. As proof I cite the following, also from Romans 2.... "26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? " So, you see - literally, in Paul's view, an "uncircumcised man" could still, at the same time, be viewed as one who "keeps the righteious requirements of the law." Despite the fact that he was not circumcised! No rabbi could ever assert this. In Genesis, God commands to Abraham that the one who fails to be circumcised must be "cut off." Yet now, Paul states that an uncircumcised man can actually "fulfill the law!" You stated: "We can clearly see the definition of sin from the following three passages... "Therefore by the deeds of the Law/ there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the Law/ is the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20" I would like to bring in the previous verse, verse 19... "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Amazingly enough, Paul states that though was given only at Sinai, it still caused all the world to become guilty. The only way this makes sense is to understand that the innate knowledge of right and wrong that a gentile knows "by nature" is also contained in the Law of Moses, alongside all the other more particularistic commandments such as circumcision. By doing this, God could hold all the world accountable at Sinai, even though the law was given to a small minority among humanity. The final passage which you request me to comment on.... ""Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law/ : for sin is the transgression of the Law/ ." - 1John 3:4" Reuel, I am not sure what translation you are utilizing here...though I could guess that it is one of the "Messianic" versions being bandied about which linguistically "stack the cards" in your favor. I only debate using one of the many fine standard translations out there, which have been carefully translated by teams of scholars with more Phd's than I could imagine. The following is from the New King James, though I could as well have used New American Standard, which is considered the most literally accurate... "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6Whoever abides in Him does not sin." You cannot take the greek word for "lawlessness" and translate it out as "transgreseth also the law/ " for then you are paraphrasing which can sometimes be helpful and other times deceptive. Lawlessness is a very general term, which could apply just as well to a more generalized "law of God" understanding, or the "law of Christ" in terms of the apostles' instructions to the church. Again, I'm certainly not making any of this up...if you can find any standard and respected commentary and greek analytical commentary to support this reading as mandating Mosaic Observence, I'd be rather surprised. Shalom, Lbj
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jan 25, 2005 10:44:36 GMT -8
In regards to Gentiles and their knowledge of , this has already been covered in my previous post. It is a mistake to trust the clearly anti-Semitic "Church Father's" when it comes to the commentary on this issue. It is clear that the Bet Din (leadership) of Jerusalem expected the Goyim after coming to Messiah to learn as we see in Acts 15:20-21. They were given a heart for the of YHVH and where expected to be gradually sanctified by it. The scriptures do not support your view. The passages in the TeNaKh already outlined in regards to the Holy Spirit and the new covenant accurately back everything I have stated. These descriptions cover -any body- coming into the new covenant. You will do well to go back through the entire thread and see what has already been stated. Messiah's Law is the very same as His Father's Law. I have already backed this up with clear scripture. The term "lawlessness" is an accurate term and means "without law". One must take into account the context in which this was spoken. In Jewish society, lawlessness always referred to rebellion against the of the Father. The message of "teshuva" a.k.a "repentance" has always been the same and involved a return to the of YHVH. Your interpretation of law in the context in which it was written is totally inconsistent with that of the TeNaKh. Your issues are with Rav Sha'ul. But, this same Apostle lifted up those whom tested his writings with the TeNaKh ( & Prophets).... "And the brethren immediately sent away Sha'ul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." - Acts 17:10-11 Much of Christianity have not followed the example of the Bereans, but have invented semantics not found in the passages of the TeNaKh making void the Word of G'd. And, this is exactly what Yeshua criticized the Pharisees for doing... "Making the word of G'd of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things do you."- Mark 7:13 As I search the TeNaKh (like the Bereans) I can clearly see the eternal definition in regards to whom are lying and in rebellion against YHVH as it is always manifested in the same way... "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear of YHVH" - Isaiah 30:8-9 And, with this the Apostle John agrees... "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."1- John 2:4 No matter how much one wishes to explain away the overwhelming evidence including all the passages in this thread by opinions not supported by the TeNaKh, no matter how much one wishes to explain away the three passages which I have addressed in the Brit Hadashah (New Test.) defining sin…the clear truth is…the immediate context of the following passages in which they are found and the broader context of the culture in which they were spoken, there is no confusing what Law is being spoken of…<br> ”Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sin."[/u] - Romans 3:20 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? G'd forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet."- Romans 7:7 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law."- 1John 3:4 When the above passages were written by these Jewish men, no one was confused about what Law was being referred to. Shalom, Reuel
|
|
lbj
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lbj on Jan 25, 2005 12:29:51 GMT -8
Reuel, You said, "It is a mistake to trust the clearly anti-Semitic "Church Father's" when it comes to the commentary on this issue." Actually, I wasn't trusting them. I was thinking of more modern, evangelical resources...Godly commentators like Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, and, just so this red herring of "anti-semitism" need not enter our discussion, I will quote from the commentary of the great pro-Jewish (he even studied Hebrews with the Rabbis of his time to increase his hebraic understanding) Baptist John Gill (who preached in the same church as Spurgeon prior to him.). There are very few commentators greater or more respected than this man... "Ver. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law,.... The objection of the Gentiles against their condemnation, taken from their being without the law, is here obviated. The apostle owns that they had not the law, that is, the written law of Moses, and yet intimates that they had, and must have a law, against which they sinned, and so deserved punishment, and which they in part obeyed; for these men do by nature the things contained in the law. The matter and substance of the moral law of Moses agrees with the law and light of nature; and the Gentiles in some measure, and in some sort, did these things by nature; not that men by the mere strength of nature without the grace of God, can fulfil the law, or do anything that is acceptable to God; and indeed, what these men did was merely natural and carnal, and so unacceptable to God. Some understand this of nature assisted by grace, in converted Gentiles, whether before or after the coming of Christ; others expound the phrase, by nature, freely, willingly, in opposition to the servile spirit of the Jews, in their obedience to the law; though it rather seems to design the dictates of natural reason, by which they acted: and so these having not the law, the written law, are a law to themselves; which they have by nature and use, and which natural reason dictates to them. So Plato distinguishes the law "into written and un written {q}: the written law is that which was used in commonwealths; and that kata eyh ginomenov, "which was according to custom or nature", was called unwritten, such as not to go to market naked, nor to be clothed with women's clothes; which things were not forbidden by any law, but these were not done because forbidden by the unwritten law;'' which he calls "unwritten", because not written on tables, or with ink; otherwise it was written in their minds, and which by nature and use they were accustomed to." Reuel, admittedly there have been racist christians in the history of the church, yet we must avoid taking the sins of some and broadbrushing the entire church. We must always remember that "racism" is transdenominational, and that even rabbis have descended to a nasty "anti-gentilism." I could quote references from the Talmud that basically reduce gentiles to the level of unthinking animals, which I don't feel is very helpful in biblical discourse. In our debate, could I ask that you refrain from labeling certain commentators I've marshalled in my defense as "anti-semitic" UNLESS there is clear evidence to support your charge? If there is evidence that John Gill is anti-semitic, by all means, lay it out for us, but where no evidence exists, integrity behooves us to exercise restraint over this type of attack. It's just not helpful, and again, it "stacks the cards" in your favor. Quote: "It is clear that the Bet Din (leadership) of Jerusalem expected the Goyim after coming to Messiah to learn as we see in Acts 15:20-21. " Reuel, I am quite familiar with this interesting interpretation of Acts 15. The most simple straightforward reading of the text is that the apostles ruled, contra the believing Pharisees, that it was not necessary to circumcise the gentiles nor command them to observe the law of Moses. Rather, they gave 4 provisions from the law to add on to previous apostolic teaching to the gentiles, in order to deal with the Jewish-gentile tensions. There is absolutely no textual grounds to assert that the council, on the contrary, ruled in favor of the Pharisees that the gentiles were to become Observent. I've noticed that Messiancs tend to salvage their position by taking the following route: they insert the idea that albeit only 4 commandments are given here, but this was merely a "starting point" on the way to full and complete Mosaic Observence. So, in effect, the apostles were speaking decietfully out of both sides of their mouth. They, in effect, let them off the hook initially, but were expected in the long run to take up the Law of Moses. There is no justification in the text for this, and it basically makes a mockery of the apostles who handed down the decision. To show that this interpretation simply will not hold water, we can look further on in the book of Acts, near the end of Paul's career and see that this expectation of "only 4" was still the ONLY expectation, and that even James, at as late a date as that, had not moved beyond that intitial judgement from the council.... Acts 22..."Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. " My question for you Reuel is how can you hold to such an interpretation when James himself, later on in his life, still hold to the "only 4" understanding and NOT the full blown "613." Shalom, Lbj
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jan 25, 2005 12:54:54 GMT -8
The commentators you list were heavily affected by the anti-semitic "Church Father's" teaching. There is no disputing this. Your reply was very creative, although I would again refer you to my previous posts in regards to the clear Universal Biblical defintion of sin as defined in the New Test. and the TeNaKh. All the semantics in the world will not change this. The definition of a rebellious and lying people is forever and will define the people for a time to come. The New Test. writings must be interpreted through the light of the TeNaKh and not the other way around. The fact that Sha’ul states in 1Timothy 3:16-17 that all scripture (TeNaKh) is profitable for doctrine, for reproof and instruction in righteousness so that the man of G’d may be perfect contradicts everything you are saying and clearly supports my statements in regards to Acts 15:20-21. It also supports the fact that the three passages I have referenced in regards to sin clearly points to transgression of The Law as found in the first five books of Moshe.
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
lbj
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lbj on Jan 25, 2005 13:14:54 GMT -8
Reuel,
I can see that we are getting at an impasse here. I addressed the three passages you mentioned, yet you bypassed my reference to Acts 22, which showed that years beyond the ruling of the council in Acts 15, even James never moved beyond the expection of the mere "four" commandments. This is a big problem for your contention that the gentiles were somehow expected to eventually move past the "four" and take up the "613."
I think we are at the point where we are not addressing each other's points but simply repeating our own assertions.
I would like to address one thing you said, "The New Test. writings must be interpreted through the light of the TeNaKh and not the other way around."
Actually, this is not correct. We are not allowed to exalt one portion of scripture over another. It is all equally inspired and authoratative in it's own right. We have to approach each Testament on it's own merit and authority. True enough the Old Covenant provides the background for the New, but both are equally inspired and authoratative.
And, if you should want to exalt one portion over another, it appears to me that it would make more sense to exalt the New Testament over the old because..."God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son" How much more authority does the New Testament have over the TeNaKh?
If you can give me your take on the implications of Acts 22, that would satisfy me with respect to this thread and, if it is ok with you, we might move to some discussion on Matthew 5.
Shalom, Lbj
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jan 25, 2005 14:12:11 GMT -8
The "four" commandments were by no means a complete list of instruction given to the Gentile believers as refuted by 1Timothy 3:16-17. No, these were simply the four immediate things that were a must to be included into the commonwealth. One could quickly imagine the other laws that one could break if he was only responsible for four laws. I did address that passage you spoke of in Acts and noted the fact that the Gentiles were expected to learn the rest of the TeNaKh by hearing it read in the synogogue as was the custom of Yeshua and all of the original Apostles (Acts 15:20-21). But, this thread is not about Acts 15. You have failed to prove that the three passages (which I have referenced) in regards to the defintion of sin do not speak of The Law as found in the first five books of The Bible. This same applies to any foreigner that joins themselves to Israel... "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 /law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." - Numbers 15:16 No one person can make void the above passages. Did the Apostles believe this? Did they go around quoting themselves and each other? Or, did they quote the TeNaKh to support what they were teaching? Did Sha'ul (Paul) praise those whom tested his sayings by his own sayings or any of the other of the Apostle's sayings? Or, did he praise those whom tested his sayings by the TeNaKh? Did the disciples spread the word of Yeshua The Messiah on their own authority, or did they constantly quote the TeNaKh? The TeNaKh says that if anyone whom claims to be a prophet comes and draws people away from keeping than such a one is a false prophet and G'd is using them to test you to see if you will keep His commandments (Deut.13:1). The arguments you have put forth by no means stand the test of scripture. There is only one standard of sin for all people as -all- the world falls under it's condemnation (Romans 3:19-20). There is no debating this as Romans 3:19-20 is absolutely clear...everything else is "grasping for straws". I agree that this conversation has come to an impasse and it will be suspended until someone has something new to add. If someone would like to point out something new, please send me a personal message on the forum here and I will re-open the discussion. Shalom, Reuel
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 26, 2005 8:03:26 GMT -8
If Paul agreed that gentiles only need avoid "the big four", then he's way out of line in the laundry list he tells gentiles to avoid in Galatians 5 as manifestations of the flesh (interesting that even "uncleanness" is included in that list).
Take a look at how Paul interprets the conclusion of the Acts 15 counsel in Galatians 2:10:
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (Gal 2:10 KJV)
In Acts 15, they never say anything at all about the poor! Yet, if you define the word "poor" in the light of the spitiual condition, the conclusion is consistent.
The gentile church was in a society that was rank with pagan idolatry. The "big four" were elements of that idolatry that was a normal part of life for that society. The conclusion reached in Jerusalem was not that only those four things should be considered sin to the gentile. If that were the case then murder and stealing would be okay. The conclusion was a response to the spiritually destitute condition of new believers in a pagan society. It's not any different than when a new believer comes to know Christ in this society. We don't tell them, "Okay, you're a Christian now. You need to read your Bible for at least an hour a day, pray two or three times daily, fast twice a week and give ten percent to the Church." No, but we do tell them stay out of the bars and the porno shops- because those things will destroy you.
Sin is the transgression of the Law- not just the ones we pick and choose that we agree with as a moral society, not just the ones that line up with our interpretation of Pauline epistles. Sin is knowing to do good and not doing it. The Law is holy and just and good.
Yeshua said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but according to every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God." Can we then justify ignoring God's definition of righteousness and sin?
Yeshua said, "This sums up the Law and the prophets, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What's the difference between "sums up" and "abrogates"?
Yeshua said, "Go into all the world and teach all nations EVERYTHING that I have commanded you." Did He not say, "These things (of Law) you ought to have done without leaving the others undone."?
There are not two standards of righteousness (one for the Jew and one for the gentile). God is no respecter of persons. He didn't say that Jews will be condemned by the Law and gentiles are left free because they have no Law. If that's the case then all gentiles will be slaved- we have no need of a Messiah. "Where there is no Law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15). Paul didn't say that. He said that every mouth would be stopped and all the world will stand guilty before God. All are under sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law (or by the Law is the knowkedge of sin... take your pick).
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Feb 26, 2005 12:29:27 GMT -8
Well said!
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Feb 26, 2005 21:31:09 GMT -8
Okay, I may be digging out some old stuff here, but I saw some things I wanted to respond to... Good point. How can HaShem judge the goyim even though they were not present at Sinai? Here is your answer: Because the pre-existed Moshe and has been known since the foundation of the world. An example of this can be found in Beresh't (Gen.) 4:3-5. Kayin and Avel offered their firstfruits. How would they have known to keep this mitzvah if had not been revealed to them? And as the Sefer HaYasher states: that upon learning , Avraham forsook the idols of his fathers for the One True G-d. Let me lay out the scenario: 1) HaShem creates the in the world of formation. This pre-exists the creation of man 2) HaShem reveals the to his creation; Adam and Havah (Eve) 3) Adam & Havah then transmit the words of HaShem to their children and so on... 4) According to Sefer HaYasher, Avraham travels to Salem and learns from Melki-Tzedek (Name sound familiar?) 5) Bnei Yisrael is led out of bondage in Mitzrayim (Egypt) by Moshe. Having spent 400yrs in bondage they have probably forgotten much of what was originally given ( ). HaShem then re-transmits the to Moshe, who then writes it down for Bnei Yisrael. So, since the has been available to all mankind since the foundation of the world, there will no excuses made on Yom Teruah (Judgement Day). In regard to your first point, you are absolutely right. Why else would they have said,(Acts 15:21) "For Moshe has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath", if they did not intend those 4 mitzvot to be a "jumping off point" so to speak. Now for your second point: The talmidim would have had no credibly with their audience if they were merely quoting each other and not the TaNaK itself. Since history records that the "New Testament" was not even canonized until 325 C.E. , there was no way that any of the writers would have referred to their own words, or those of their contemporaries as "Scripture." (Not that they aren't divinely inspired, but this goes to make a point.) The only Scripture that was available was the TaNaK. That's it. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 27, 2005 4:14:00 GMT -8
My turn to say, amen.
|
|
|
Post by shakira on Jan 25, 2006 13:37:59 GMT -8
sin is disobeying God. It has 2 main forms. 1.) doing what does God does NOT want us to do, and 2.) Not doing what God wants us to.
|
|
|
Post by Ashirah on Feb 28, 2006 23:23:42 GMT -8
is G-d's standard of living, being and doing - to Him and to each other. All the 'law' is aimed for those 2 things, so that we would know how to love Him, ourselves and each other. I think "sin" is a state of being, not something we do or not do. We are in a state of sin, like we are either in a state of forgiveness or unforgiveness. We are in a state of adultery or fornication or not. To me "sin" is a barometer of where I'm at. I look to see where I "sin" so I know what to ask G-d to help me with or grow in. What I see in most 'churches' is that they use "sin" to beat themselves or each other up with. Because they don't understand "sin" they miss the picture of redemption, salvation, forgiveness etc. G-d knew that we would stumble and fall and need to do teshuva (repentance). He knew we need to grow, that we aren't perfect, that we make mistakes. So He gave us unconditional love and the means to be forgiven and the means to forgive one another. He didn't give us that knowledge so that we would go and hide and try to cover up our sin but He gave us eyes to see our sin so that we could ask his help in our repenting and growing up into Him in all things in love. I have found it difficult working with people because they are so very afraid for others to know what 'their' sin is. They don't even want to face their 'sin'. But by hiding from others and themselves they can't grow and become holy as He is holy. They stay in , guilt, condemnation and in a state of ungrace - against each other and against themselves and against G-d. In reality the best thing to do is to embrace our "sins" and ask G-d to help us do something about them.
|
|